Listen dude. I have a strong faith in god and his works. Religion is where I develop a problem. Do you think that people are gay against God’s will, and that there’s nothing he could do about it? Think about it. All things happen for a reason and all things exist because God allows them to. Period.
If:
-God has a plan for us all and we all interweave together in that plan
-God has a reason for everything
-God doesn’t make mistakes
Then:
-God’s plan includes the homosexuals
-There’s a reason he allowed homosexuals to come into this world
-God doesn’t make mistakes. Period.
To think that anyone, including the homosexuals, could do anything but god’s will is vain indeed.[/quote]
one word my friend, free will, its a bitch aint it, cant gave us free will, so you cant say that anything in this earth is his plan. so hitler was his plan? stalin was his plan?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, your statistics may well be true. But you have yet to offer a feasible alternative. The only one offered has been the suggestion to stop being gay, which the majority of the evidence, except for one deeply flawed study, suggests is currently not possible.[/quote]
Firstly, the Spitzer study is NOT deeply flawed. It produced amazing results and the same techniques that worked for Spitzer (over 50% change rate) can work for others. But, the politically correct APA has to actually want to initiate such things.
However, please don’t think for a second that the Spitzer study is the only work out there that demonstrates that homosexuals can change:
"(May 9, 2001). Press Release, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results: “Some Gays can Change.”
“Like most psychiatrists,” says Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue–some people can and do change.”
Acosta, F., (1975) Etiology and treatment of homosexuality: review. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 4:9-29.
??better prospects for intervention in homosexual life and in its prevention through the early identification and treatment of the potential homosexual child.? (p. 9)
Aries, P. and A. Bejin, ed., Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), 124-125.
Bieber, I., et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic Books.
?The therapeutic results of our study provide reason for an optimistic outlook. Many homosexuals became exclusively heterosexual in psychoanalytic treatment. Although this change may be more easily accomplished by some than by others, in our judgment a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change.? (p. 319)
Bieber, I., Bieber, T. (1979) Male homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 24, 5:409-421.
?We have followed some patients for as long as 20 years who have remained exclusively heterosexual. Reversal estimates now range from 30% to an optimistic 50%.? (p.416)
Cappon, D., (1965) Toward an Understanding of Homosexuality. Englewoord Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Of patients with bisexual problems 90% were cured (i.e., no reversions to homosexual behavior, no consciousness of homosexual desire and fantasy) in males who terminated treatment by common consent. Male homosexual patients: 80% showed marked improvement (i.e., occasional relapses, release of aggression, increasingly dominant heterosexuality)? 50% changed.? (p. 265-268)
Clippinger, J., (1974) Homosexuality can be cured. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy. 21, 2:15-28.
?Of 785 patients treated, 307, or approximately 38%, were cured. Adding the percentage figures of the two other studies, we can say that at least 40% of the homosexuals were cured, and an additional 10 to 30% of the homosexuals were improved, depending on the particular study for which statistics were available.? (p. 22)
Fine, R., (1987) Psychoanalytic theory. (in Diamant L. Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing.) 81-95.
??a considerable percentage of overt homosexuals became heterosexual? If patients were motivated, whatever procedure is adopted a large percentage will give up their homosexuality? The misinformation that homosexuality is untreatable by psychotherapy does incalculable harm to thousands of men and women?? (p. 85-86)
Fitzgibbons, R., (1999) The origins and therapy of same-sex attraction disorder. (in Wolfe, C. Homosexuality and American Public Life. Spence) 85-97.
"The second most common cause of SSAD [same sex attraction disorder] among males is mistrust of women?s love? Male children in fatherless homes often feel overly responsible for their mothers. As they enter their adolescence, they may come to view female love as draining and exhausting.? (p. 89)
?Experience has taught me that healing is a difficult process, but through the mutual efforts of the therapist and the patient, serious emotional wounds can be healed over a period of time.? (p. 96)
Goetze, R. (1997) Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: A Review of 17 Published Studies. Toronto Canada: New Directions for Life.
44 persons who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual experienced a full shift of sexual orientation.
Hatterer, L., (1970) Changing Homosexuality in the Male. NY: McGraw-Hill.
49 patients changed (20 married, of these 10 remained married, 2 divorced, 18 achieved heterosexual adjustments); 18 partially recovered, remained single; 76 remained homosexual (28 palliated ? 58 unchanged) ?A large undisclosed population has melted into heterosexual society, persons who behaved homosexually in late adolescence and early adulthood, and who, on their own, resolved their conflicts and abandoned such behavior to go on to successful marriages or to bisexual patterns of adoption.? (p. 14)
James, Elizabeth (1978) Treatment of Homosexuality: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Outcome Studies (unpublished PhD dissertation, Brigham Young University, on file with Brigham Young University Library).
Elizabeth James meta-analyzed over 100 outcome studies published between 1930 and 1976, and concluded that when all the research was combines, 35% of homosexual clients “recovered” and 27% improved.
Kaye, H., Beri, S., Clare, J., Eleston, M., Gershwin, B., Gershwin, P., Kogan, L., Torda, C., Wilber, C. (1967) Homosexuality in Women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 17:626-634.
??optimism in the psychoanalytic treatment of homosexual women. ?at least a 50% probability of significant improvement in women with this syndrome who present themselves for treatment and remain in it.? (p. 634)
Kronemeyer, R. (1980) Overcoming Homosexuality. NY: Macmillian
?For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy it is ?curable?.? (p.7)
MacIntosh, H. (1994) Attitudes and experiences of psychoanalysts. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 42, 4: 1183-1207.
824 male patients of 213 analysts ? 197 (23.9%) changed to heterosexuality, 703 received significant therapeutic benefit; and of the 391 female patients of 153 analysts ? 79 (20.2%) changed to heterosexuality, 318 received significant therapeutic benefit. (p. 1183)
MacIntosh, H. (1995) Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183.
422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity.
Marmor, J. (1975) Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances. (In Freedman, A., Kaplan, H., Sadock, B. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry: II, Second Edition. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins)
?This conviction of untreatability also serves an ego-defensive purpose for many homosexuals. ?however, there has evolved a greater therapeutic optimism about the possibilities for change? There is little doubt that a genuine shift in preferential sex object choice can and does take place in somewhere between 20 and 50 per cent of patients with homosexual behavior who seek psychotherapy with this end in mind.? (p. 1519)
Newman, L., (1976) Treatment for the parents of feminine boys. American Journal of Psychiatry. 133, 6: 683-687.
?Experiences of being ostracized and ridiculed may play a more important role than has been recognized in the total abandonment of the male role at a later time.? (p. 687)
?Feminine boys, unlike men with postpubertal gender identity disorders seem remarkably responsive to treatment.? (p. 684)
Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA:
Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable.
Pattison, E.M., Pattison, M.L. (1980, December) ?Ex-Gays?: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (12): 1553-1562.
Authors evaluated 11 white men who claimed to have changed sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. Corollary evidence suggests that the phenomenon of substantiated change in sexual orientation without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy may be much more common than previously thought.
Rekers, J. (1988) The formation of homosexual orientation. (In Fagan, P. Hope for Homosexuality. Washington DC: Free Congress Foundation.)
?With major research grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, I have experimentally demonstrated an affective treatment for ‘gender identity disorder of childhood’, which appears to hold potential for preventing homosexual orientation in males.?
Satinover, J., (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.
These reports contradict claims that change is impossible. It would be more accurate to say that all the existing evidence suggests strongly that homosexuality is quite changeable.
?Each individual?s homosexuality is the likely result of a complex mixture of genetic, intrauterine, and extrauterine biological factors combined with familial and social factors as well as repeatedly reinforced choices.? (p. 245)
“A study conducted by a homosexual couple found that out of 156 same-sex couples ‘only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that the expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.’”
Schwartz, M.F., Masters, W.H. (1984, February). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (2): 173-181.
?Certain individuals who want to change their homosexual preference can be helped by a short-term intensive intervention. The failure rate in helping dissatisfied homosexuals establish heterosexual lifestyles after the intensive phase of the intervention was 20.9%, and after 5 years? follow-up it was 28.4%.
Spitzer, Robert (May 2001) Psychiatry and Homosexuality, Wall St. Journal, A26.
“In the sample he studied, Spitzer concluded that many (homosexuals) made substantial changes (after gender affirmative therapy) in sexual arousal and fantasy–not merely behavior. Even subjects who made less substantial change believed it to be extremely beneficial.”
Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4: 283-305.
?I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no patients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors ? that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches.? (p. 287)
West, D. (1977) Homosexuality Re-examined. London Duckworth
Behavioral techniques have the best document success (never less than 30%); psychoanalysis claims a great deal of success (the average rate seemed to be about 5%, but 50% of the bisexuals achieved exclusive heterosexuality.)
Zucker, K., Bradley, S. (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. NY: Guilford. ??we feel that parental tolerance of cross-gender behavior at the time of its emergence is instrumental in allowing the behavior to develop?? (p. 259)
??In general we concur with those (e.g. Green 1972; Newman 1976; Stoller, 1978) who believe that the earlier treatment begins, the better.? (p. 281) ?It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change. In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children?s behavior or fantasy suggests that gender identity issues remain problematic? All things considered, however, we take the position that in such cases clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.? (p. 282)"
As you can see there is an overwhelming amount of studies that demonstrate that same sex attraction can be changed for many!
Why is it that we never read of these studies in the mainstream media?
THINK
My biggest complaint is NOT with homosexuals embracing an obviously dangerous behaior, in a dangerous fashion. As it has aptly been pointed out, plenty of people embrace dangerous lifestyles and are free to do so. It’s the lies that are told by the powerful gay lobby. The liberals who personally attack you if you point to the truth. And the politcally correct who would rather NOT OFFEND than tell the truth.
I want them to get off the crap!
Real people are dying daily from AIDS (for example) and it is virtually killing a large percentage of the gay community.
And these people who hide or run from the truth and personally attack those of us who try to point out the truth claim that they love these folks?
BULL!
You cannot do that as long as you are pushing a lie!
If the facts were well known the rate of disease, pain and death would be lowered.
Instead of being a pain in the butt on this thread? LOL
How do you know I’m not actively involved in helping those very people?
You cannot find a “cure” (as you put it) when those in authority in the gay community are screaming at the top of their lungs: WE ARE BORN THAT WAY!
That could very well be the first big lie.
You cannot minimize “risky behavior”
when the politically correct mainstream media (and other groups) hide the facts from the populace.
Before any problem is solved those affected must believe that there is a problem. And secondly, real data must be examined and those involved must understand this information.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Politically correct is nitpicking and using euphenisms and trying to keep things nice and clean in the name of ‘sensitivity’ and avoiding hurting peoples feelings.
You have just described those who want to silence anyone who speaks out with facts and figures regarding the homosexual act and lifestyle!
Their cry is “don’t offend these people.” Regardless of the outcome.
Thank you[/quote]
Bullshit. Offending people is not the problem. Focusing so intently on a specific group, aiming attacks at them and covering all of it up by saying “hey, I am just showing facts” is where the problem lies. There are many activities that are risky. If you choose to base this in science, then explain how “gay marriage” will not reduce the risks you keep discussing. I haven’t seen you do this yet.
[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
one word my friend, free will, its a bitch aint it, cant gave us free will, so you cant say that anything in this earth is his plan. so hitler was his plan? stalin was his plan?
[/quote]
Every negative exists in order to identify the positive. Without pain, we would have no true concept of pleasure. Our existance would be stunted if the only thing we knew were positives. With that in mind, it is my complete belief that our universe relies on rules of cause and effect. These rules allow for free will and the existance of the opposite of good, the opposite of pleasure. That is what allows us the ability to make a choice, the difference between the more positive road and the least.
Of course, you will find a way to deny this because you CHOOSE to not accept the concept of an ultimate power that exists outside the realm of the rules governing this universe. That power would be ommipotent because it does not observe the rules we live under. When asked, “why does God then allow evil?”, the answer is that evil is necessary for our own existance. We set the game in motion at the beginning of time when we had the choice of simply following what we were told and we CHOSE to do the opposite. We CHOSE to observe the least positive. That mistake is why this concept exists and we live under it.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Dude, you are just so wrong. Find me a single statistic or credible place that says the majority of straight people contracted AIDS from blood transusions rather than unprotected sex or IV drug use. You will not be able to do it.
[/quote]
I was speaking in terms of the known history of the disease, not just since they found a better screening test for HIV in blood. So if we are talking about now, most all hetero’s get HIV from blood transfusions and prostitutes having sex with men who have sex with other men.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.[/quote]
Really? How many movies in the last 5 years glorified illegal drug use as a good alternative lifestyle? Now how many have glorified the homosexual lifestyle like brokeback?
Sorry Bro, but being gay is cool and PC and being a drugy is not.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.
Really? How many movies in the last 5 years glorified illegal drug use as a good alternative lifestyle? Now how many have glorified the homosexual lifestyle like brokeback?
Sorry Bro, but being gay is cool and PC and being a drugy is not.
[/quote]
What? Did you see How High? What about the movie that put Dave Chappelle on the map, Half Baked? Dude, do you get out at all? You have lost all rights to even pretend that you hang out in the real world.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Politically correct is nitpicking and using euphenisms and trying to keep things nice and clean in the name of ‘sensitivity’ and avoiding hurting peoples feelings.
You have just described those who want to silence anyone who speaks out with facts and figures regarding the homosexual act and lifestyle!
Their cry is “don’t offend these people.” Regardless of the outcome.
Thank you[/quote]
I don’t see any attempts to silence. I see open and voracious debate. I don’t know who you’re looking at or who you’re talking about.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.
Really? How many movies in the last 5 years glorified illegal drug use as a good alternative lifestyle? Now how many have glorified the homosexual lifestyle like brokeback?
Sorry Bro, but being gay is cool and PC and being a drugy is not.
What? Did you see How High? What about the movie that put Dave Chappelle on the map, Half Baked? Dude, do you get out at all? You have lost all rights to even pretend that you hang out in the real world.[/quote]
Bullshit. Offending people is not the problem.[/quote]
Not for you apparently.
(Looks around and up at the title) This is a thread that relates to homosexuality.
And I am showing evidence that supports my premise. Um…that’s what we do here.
Get it?
Want to start a thread about abortion?
I think that’s wrong too. And I will put forth supporting data.
Want to start a thread on gun control? I don’t like that either. And there is some very clear data that demonstrate that where there are more gun owners there is LESS crime…
Am I a bad guy for stating that?
Don’t like the facts that I have produced regarding homosexuality? Then put forth some evidence that contradicts them.
It’s really very simple.
[quote]There are many activities that are risky. If you choose to base this in science, then explain how “gay marriage” will not reduce the risks you keep discussing. I haven’t seen you do this yet.
Again, simply offending people is not the issue. [/quote]
I’ve already put forth volumes of studies which support that fact that even gays in “committed relationships” have provisions for having sex outside of that relationship.
If a certain segment of a population wants to be monogomous they can be. Who is “forcing” (many) gays to have multiple partners? Overhauling a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population is insane!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The politically correct rhetoric is bunk. There are two sides: one is for gay marriage, civil unions, or ‘gay rights’ and the other is against it. Both sides have their reasons. It’s a polarizing issue and both feel pretty strongly about it and are pretty vocal. It has nothing to do with political correctness.
Really? How many movies in the last 5 years glorified illegal drug use as a good alternative lifestyle? Now how many have glorified the homosexual lifestyle like brokeback?
Sorry Bro, but being gay is cool and PC and being a drugy is not.
[/quote]
Drunk use is glorified, smoking is glorified, infidelity/being a ‘player’ is glorified in many circles. Nothing new. Many things are seen as ‘cool’ and the detrimental aspects not stressed even that affect far more people than homsexuality. This is just something you’ve chosen to latch on to because in uniquely offends you and is something you feel strongly against.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Politically correct is nitpicking and using euphenisms and trying to keep things nice and clean in the name of ‘sensitivity’ and avoiding hurting peoples feelings.
You have just described those who want to silence anyone who speaks out with facts and figures regarding the homosexual act and lifestyle!
Their cry is “don’t offend these people.” Regardless of the outcome.
Thank you
Bullshit. Offending people is not the problem. Focusing so intently on a specific group, aiming attacks at them and covering all of it up by saying “hey, I am just showing facts” is where the problem lies. There are many activities that are risky. If you choose to base this in science, then explain how “gay marriage” will not reduce the risks you keep discussing. I haven’t seen you do this yet.
Again, simply offending people is not the issue. [/quote]
He cannot. There is zero legitimate basis to argue a causal link between civil unions and increased promiscuity and risky behaviors. There is some logical basis to assume it will encourage monogamy and more stable lifestyles. Otherwise, the status quo will be maintained.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve already put forth volumes of studies which support that fact that even gays in “committed relationships” have provisions for having sex outside of that relationship.
If a certain segment of a population wants to be monogomous they can be. Who is “forcing” (many) gays to have multiple partners? Overhauling a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population is insane!
[/quote]
This did not answer the question posed to you. WTF? Provisions? heterosexuals have sex outside the marriage as well. From what I have seen (especially with the generation just hitting their early 20’s) this is almost becoming “normal”. Yes, that is sad, but you would have to be living under a rock to not know this. None of that answers if allowing gay marriage could decrease the many “risks” you keep discussing. I think it pisses you off that the answer is “yes, it could”.
Zeb, you have convinced yourself that the APA and everyone else who is not against gay unions is doing so for the sake of ‘poltical correctness’ which does not even have any real meaning the way you use it. You have never stopped to ask yourself why anybody would ever have such an agenda or support gay unions for any reason other than the fact that they believe it cannot be controlled and legal rights should be afforded accordingly.
***It most certainly can be proven that homosexuality can be cured. We used to think the earth was flat at the center of the universe. It was proved otherwise against widespread protest. Scientists were declared heretics, denounced by the church, and threatened with physical violence. The truth still ultimately came out. The same is true for homosexuality. In fact, it should be much easier. Any legitimate scientists can run their experiements, and they should be able to receive ample funding from the relgious right, other conservative groups, and with the full support of the supposed 70% against gay marriage. If their evidence and findings are compelling enough they will be accepted and applied. I await that day.
I think if you actually watched the movie (I did) you would come off with the idea that “Damn, glad I am not gay”. This glorification you speak of is not that they live these happy lifes in pink shirts with thier collars up. They live a life of a lie that makes them dislike themselves.
He cannot. There is zero legitimate basis to argue a causal link between civil unions and increased promiscuity and risky behaviors. There is some logical basis to assume it will encourage monogamy and more stable lifestyles. Otherwise, the status quo will be maintained.[/quote]
There is also some logical basis to assume it will encourage homsexuality. And until you or anyone else can prove how one becomes homosexual you cannot refute this!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I’ve already put forth volumes of studies which support that fact that even gays in “committed relationships” have provisions for having sex outside of that relationship.
If a certain segment of a population wants to be monogomous they can be. Who is “forcing” (many) gays to have multiple partners? Overhauling a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population is insane!
This did not answer the question posed to you. WTF? Provisions? heterosexuals have sex outside the marriage as well. From what I have seen (especially with the generation just hitting their early 20’s) this is almost becoming “normal”. Yes, that is sad, but you would have to be living under a rock to not know this. None of that answers if allowing gay marriage could decrease the many “risks” you keep discussing. I think it pisses you off that the answer is “yes, it could”.[/quote]
First of all produce the statistics which state that those in their 20’s have sex outside of their marriage more than other age groups.
It seems that you MIGHT be drawing a false conclusion.
Secondly, tell me how the government sanctioning gay marriage will actually decrease promiscuity among gays.
Especially in light of the fact that you are trying to push the supposition that married people cheat! (Without any evidence to the fact)
It seems that your argument is inherently flawed on every level.
He cannot. There is zero legitimate basis to argue a causal link between civil unions and increased promiscuity and risky behaviors. There is some logical basis to assume it will encourage monogamy and more stable lifestyles. Otherwise, the status quo will be maintained.
There is also some logical basis to assume it will encourage homsexuality. And until you or anyone else can prove how one becomes homosexual you cannot refute this!
[/quote]
That is NOT an answer to the question. Is it that painful? It must be to have skirted such a direct question twice now. First, it was that they can still have sex outside the marriage, and now it is fear that it will turn the whole world gay. Well shit, if it did, more pussy for me. YAAAAAAY!!!
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you have convinced yourself that the APA and everyone else who is not against gay unions is doing so for the sake of ‘poltical correctness’ which does not even have any real meaning the way you use it.[/quote]
I simply look at the facts and draw a logical conclusion.
Why don’t you look at the facts and draw your own conclusion:
I think we have discussed this. Is this going to be one of those back and forth exchanges where we state and restate until everyone is mad?
Gay lobby groups are quite powerful. Do you know this?
They are also well funded. Did you know this?
And they also work very closely with the democratic party (not the rank and file democrat, but the party elite). Did you know this?
And others who are less political, yet very liberal (such as Professors for example, in the University system)think that it is very open minded and PC to accept all sorts of “different” behavior.
There you have it (in a nutshell), the the three main groups who attempt to perpetuate the great “gay myth.”
[quote] ***It most certainly can be proven that homosexuality can be cured. We used to think the earth was flat at the center of the universe. It was proved otherwise against widespread protest. Scientists were declared heretics, denounced by the church, and threatened with physical violence. The truth still ultimately came out. The same is true for homosexuality.
In fact, it should be much easier. Any legitimate scientists can run their experiements, and they should be able to receive ample funding from the relgious right, other conservative groups, and with the full support of the supposed 70% against gay marriage. If their evidence and findings are compelling enough they will be accepted and applied. I await that day.[/quote]
I think if you actually watched the movie (I did) you would come off with the idea that “Damn, glad I am not gay”. This glorification you speak of is not that they live these happy lifes in pink shirts with thier collars up. They live a life of a lie that makes them dislike themselves.
[/quote]
One could argue that that premise is in fact a lie!
Where is the proof that the primary reason for gays being unhappy is because they live a lie?
It could be that there are other more obvious reasons. And Hollywood is not all that ready to talk about those reasons.
Then again it is justentertainment…
I am more interested in how Hollywood rallys around a film like this (patting themselves on the back) than the specific theme within.