Zeb,
I do not wish to argue with your point of view simply because you have not seen the movie.
If you have, we could obviously have an conversation with both people having at least the same body of knowledge about this particular film.
OK, I’ll address this little logical “Red Herring” from “bigflamer” for a moment - Let’s look at the below logical constructs and the conclusion, as a whole, critically; then maybe I’ll address the individual constructs and explain the issues associated with each of them:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
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]
So, the overall conclusion is that the human race always does, in all circumstances, God’s will.
I’ll leave the readers of this thread to determine the validity of the above conclusion based on their own personal understanding of the Creator God. I believe, though, that even the most casual observer, would find fault with that statement. (If anyone wants to debate that point, I welcome further discussion of this in a different thread.)
Now, onto the logical constructs:
Premise 1: God has a plan for us all and we all interweave together in that plan
Partial Credit - The first portion of the above statement is true, but the implicit conclusion, wrapped in the veil of a premise, is only true as long as we remain obedient to that plan; once a deviation occurs, we still may weave, just NOT in God’s prescribed pattern (to extend the cloth metaphor).
Premise 2: God has a reason for everything
True but the implication is False - God does have a reason for everything HE does, but (and this in implied by P1), the reason we, the human race, may choose to do or do NOT do things are not necessarily in alignment with the purposes (i.e. - reasons) of God. To, therefore, conclude that whatever we do is in perfect harmony with God’s plan is an incorrect conclusion.
Premise 3: God doesn’t make mistakes
True, but again the implication is False - God does not make mistakes, but the implication that the human race doesn’t make mistakes or (even deeper still) that people who claim they were born gay were done so by divine design is again an incorrect conclusion.
The further conclusions, C1 thru C3, are simply textbook examples of circular reasoning, and need no further refuting.
Mr. Bigflamer - I can appreciate your attempt at Universal Inclusion (it really does give everyone a nice, warm, fuzzy to think that we’re all OK to do whatever we want to do), but I respectfully submit that you need to re-think your logical arguments.
MIKE
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is NOT an answer to the question. Is it that painful? [/quote]
Not nearly as painful as reading your logic my friend.
Now please explain this for me which is my response to your post (not someone else’s):
"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 (and logic) is inherently flawed on every level."
I’ll be waiting for your answers to the above.
Skirted? You say this for…what purpose? Is it for humor?
Why can’t it be both and even more? Is there simply ONE reason to be against an issue? Hmm…
THINK
And…I never said that it would turn the “whole world gay.” That appears to be a grand mischaracterization on your part. Was this intentional? If it was not intentional then please pay closer attention to my posts (I don’t mean this sarcastically. Please don’t take it that way).
This is EXACTLY what I stated:
"There is also some logical basis to assume it will encourage homosexuality. And until you or anyone else can prove how one becomes homosexual you cannot refute this!
There are many levels to this debate. And in this thread we have really only scratched the surface. Don’t allow your dislike for me (for whatever reason) blind you to the facts of the debate.
Thank you,
Zeb
[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]
And how many of these drugy movies received awards? Ooops, didn’t think about that did you.
Comparing serious drama movies to goofy stoner movies like half-baked is not reasonable. You have lost all rights to ever give movie advice!
Zeb likes to pretend that he is offering objective evidence in favor of his anti-gay agenda, but let’s look a little closer at his claims.
He is fond of quoting the Spitzer study. However, he only provided partial information from the study, and completely ignored the link I provided showing how his conclusions were taken out of context.
Here’s the link again, in case anyone out there actually cares to know what the Spitzer study found:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm
Even within the hand-picked information that Zeb provided, I pointed out a key paragraph showing that the large majority of participants in Spitzer’s study did not, in fact, change their orientation. They only changed their external behavior (like I did for all those years). But they were still, at the core level, attracted to people of their same gender. So much for the so-called “success” of reparative therapy.
Zeb has also ignored the definitive statements I provided from the major medical and mental healthy organizations regarding reparative therapy. He claims (without offering any proof) that the American Psychological Association is just being “politically correct”. I’m curious what he thinks about all the other organizations that I cited. How about the American Medical Association? The Surgeon General? The American Psychiatric Association? The American Academy of Pediatrics? All of these organizations have reviewed the last two decades of research, and have universally concluded that sexual orientation cannot generally be changed, and that attempts to do so can actually be harmful.
Here is an excerpt from the link I provided earlier:
[quote]Various professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have stated that a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed by reparative therapy. 1,2
The one exception is the very small group: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH was founded in 1992 as a “non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality.” It currently consists of “more than 1,000 mental-health professionals.” – fewer than 1% of the therapists who belong to either of the APA’s. 3,4 NARTH strongly advocates the use of reparative therapy, believing it to be very effective and safe. They regard homosexual behavior as a treatable disorder.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association have formed the “Just the Facts Coalition.” In 1999, they developed and endorsed “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel.” It includes a number of quotations from major professional organizations expressing concern about reparative therapy and other methods of attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation. One example is the American Academy of Pediatrics, which stated: “Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”[/quote]
Are you going to listen to NARTH, which was specifically founded as:
The organization’s definition shows that it has a political agenda, and that its purpose is to prevent homosexuality. So conclusions from this organization are supposed to be unbiased???
In contrast, you can listen to the conclusions of respected scientific organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Why would ANYONE listen to Narth, and ignore the world’s major medical and mental health organizations, assuming they were genuinely interested in knowing the TRUTH about homosexuality?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.
And how many of these drugy movies received awards? Ooops, didn’t think about that did you.
Comparing serious drama movies to goofy stoner movies like half-baked is not reasonable. You have lost all rights to ever give movie advice!
[/quote]
What? Some movies like Friday, regardless of having received awards, are so well known they might as well be urban classics. It is very rare for any urban movie to get an award. Boyz N The Hood had an all star cast and didn’t get any awards. That speaks more towards overall bias of films like that than anything else. I could care less about any awards this movie got just like most people DO NOT CARE. People don’t base movies they watch on oscar winners. At least no one I know does this so you have no point. It winning an award shouldn’t even be the issue. You said that there were no movies that glorified drug use. This is FALSE. the movies that have are well known and are VERY POPULAR.
Anyone who is near my age and never saw Friday is probably someone I have little in common with.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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]
Give me the logical basis. A causal connection please. Then I’ll grant you that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Why would ANYONE listen to Narth, and ignore the world’s major medical and mental health organizations, assuming they were genuinely interested in knowing the TRUTH about homosexuality?[/quote]
That is the problem with Zeb. I have some respect for him. But he already knows when he thinks and when there is legitimate information that is the opposite conclusion he dismisses the people advancing it as biased.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Especially in light of the fact that you are trying to push the supposition that married people cheat! (Without any evidence to the fact)
[/b]
[/quote]
There is no evidence of this? Hardly-what about all teh divorce action, with the claim being cheating. What about all the married people who have ADMITTED to cheating. Why don’t you be objective and find the statistics for us? You like statistics. They are out there.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.
And how many of these drugy movies received awards? Ooops, didn’t think about that did you.
Comparing serious drama movies to goofy stoner movies like half-baked is not reasonable. You have lost all rights to ever give movie advice!
[/quote]
How about hit tv shows, like Sex & the City, where smoking, rampant promiscuity, drinking, and drug use are highly glamourized? Critically acclaimed and the recipient of numerous awards as well. It is hardly unique to this issue
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb likes to pretend that he is offering objective evidence in favor of his anti-gay agenda…[/quote]
Allow me to correct you!
A. I have an anti pain and suffering agenda.
B. I AM offering objective evidence (at least most of it:).
[quote]He is fond of quoting the Spitzer study. However, he only provided partial information from the study, and completely ignored the link I provided showing how his conclusions were taken out of context.
Here’s the link again, in case anyone out there actually cares to know what the Spitzer study found:[/quote]
And you think the religious toleance web site is unbiased?
That’s sort of funny man.
Wrong again oh blinded one!
Here is exactly what was stated:
"in May of 2001, two papers on the topic of conversion therapies were presented at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual convention. One paper, by Dr. Robert Spitzer, reported in follow up findings (over a two year period) from 45-minute telephone interviews with 143 men and 57 women who had sought help to change their sexual orientation. He found that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had achieved “good heterosexual functioning” and he attributed this to the interventions.
That means that 66% of all males and 44% of all females not only changed their same sex attraction, but held it!
forlife, you are a homosexual. If you are truly happy being a homosexual congratulations! I have far less problems with that than you do in me being a Christian. But because you tried to change and failed does not mean that everyone who tries to change. Nor does it mean that YOU are a failure. It might mean that you did not get the proper therapy…or a number of other things.
And remeber there are other significant studies:
(The following even cites Freud himself as having a 50% success rate in changing homosexuals. But what does Dr. Sigmund Freud know? LOL)
"While investigations into treating homosexuality have suddenly become rare in light of a politically correct chill effect, a significant body of work demonstrates that homosexuality can be treated successfully - with success rates well above those for treating alcoholics.
Secular treatment of homosexuality using psychotherapy or psychoanalysis has been reported in a variety of studies, beginning with Freud himself, who reported a 50% success rate in treating 8 homosexuals (A. Freud, “Some Clinical Remarks Concerning the Treatment of Male Homosexuality,” The Intl. Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30, p. 195, as cited by Satinover, p. 185). Satinover summarizes additional published studies on treatment of homosexuality with psychotherapy (mostly) and psychoanalysis, having a composite success rate of 52% in treating a total of 341 homosexuals (p. 186).
The most recently cited study (G. van den Aardweg, On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation, Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1986) reports a success rate of 65% in treating 101 people. “Success” in these studies is defined as “considerable” to “complete” change. Though the nine studies listed by Satinover have small sample sizes, the results still contradict gay propaganda by showing that homosexuality can be treated. The data demonstrate that change is possible."
http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html
And what about the 30 or 40 other credible documents which I cited in two previous posts, which contain evidence that those with same sex attraction can change?
Were all of those people lying as well?
Is every former homosexual lying about changing?
Are you the only homosexual who is telling the truth?
I think not.
"One APA member recently wrote a letter to the editor stating that “traditionalist views on gender, homosexuality, family and a host of other issues are currently not welcome at APA.” “Diversity,” the writer states, “has been redefined into a kind of narrow politicism, where differing world views are not only summarily dismissed, but the holders of such views are actually punished.”
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-gave-you-idea-we-were-politically.html
“…some time ago the University of Delaware-based APA ceased to be a philosophical organization and became just one more club of career academics, rife with factions and driven by compulsory conformity to all the politically correct fads.”
“Sadly, the climate in academic circles today has become decidedly hostile toward research involving treatment of homosexuality, for “political correctness” is dominant, especially in the American Psychiatric Association, and those suggesting homosexuality is something to cure may be treated as pariahs.”
http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html
Happy reading forlife!
When you get done with the above I will send you another 3 or 4.
Honestly I thought everyone knew that the APA sold their soul to the politically correct liberals long ago.
Oh well…
Why did you ignore the 30 or 40 studies performed by independent researches who state definitively that same sex attraction can be changed?
Do you have a homosexual agenda? Now let me think why would you be so bias and accuse the thousands of people who have changed of lying?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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!
Give me the logical basis. A causal connection please. Then I’ll grant you that.
[/quote]
Okay:
As long as no one knows how someone becomes gay,(and currently no one does) then how can you state that government sanctioning of gay marriage would not promote homosexual activity?
What (formerly taboo) subject that is promoted and sanctioned made less attractive?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
forlife wrote:
Why would ANYONE listen to Narth, and ignore the world’s major medical and mental health organizations, assuming they were genuinely interested in knowing the TRUTH about homosexuality?
That is the problem with Zeb. I have some respect for him. But he already knows when he thinks and when there is legitimate information that is the opposite conclusion he dismisses the people advancing it as biased. [/quote]
Only when they are biased.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Especially in light of the fact that you are trying to push the supposition that married people cheat! (Without any evidence to the fact)
[/b]
There is no evidence of this? Hardly-what about all teh divorce action, with the claim being cheating. What about all the married people who have ADMITTED to cheating. Why don’t you be objective and find the statistics for us? You like statistics. They are out there.[/quote]
I was referring to what he stated “people in their early 20’s cheat more than others.” To which he could not back up with any statistical data and it was dropped.
Uh oh, Willie Nelson is now officially part of the conspiracy to turn us into gay cowboys!
The children! Why won’t anybody think of the children?
Hey lorisco, when you find yourself in a debate with people who are not yet aware (or refuse to admit) that Hollywood is liberal…well you are sort of wasting your time.
Here is a thread I had from the last Presidential race. It points out quite clearly whose side Hollywood is on.
http://www.isteve.com/2003_Few_Republicans_in_Hollywood.htm
But keep in mind when debating with liberals that your facts mean nothing!
Ha ha…Liberals are funny people 
“A recent report by Dr. Timothy J. Daily cites more than 75 scientific and health studies from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and elsewhere proving that homosexual and lesbian relationships are typically characterized by instability, promiscuity, disease, and behavioral problems.”
The CDC? Why what does that goverment agency know?
Renowned authors? What do they know?
"In THE MALE COUPLE, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years, only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.2 In MALE AND FEMALE HOMOSEXUALITY, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.3
Either Zeb has a short-term memory, or he blatantly misrepresents the research he likes to cite. As I pointed out earlier, according to the Spitzer study:
So you see, even in Zeb’s biased selection of studies, the “success rate” is in question. People don’t really change who they find attractive…only their external behavior changes. Even Spitzer admits that true change is “probably quite uncommon”.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Zeb just ignores this point again, and continues spouting Spitzer as if it actually supports his argument.
Not surprisingly, the “sources” that Zeb uses to prove the APA is politically motivated are conservatives like Jeff Lindsay, with a known political agenda themselves. That is not proof…it is namecalling and nothing more.
More importantly, Zeb continues to ignore the LONG LIST of medical and mental health organizations that have UNIVERSALLY concluded that people cannot generally change their orientation, and that attempting to do so can be damaging.
Here are some of those organizations:
American Medical Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association
American Psychiatric Association
The Surgeon General’s Office
I wonder if Zeb is going to dismiss ALL of these organizations as being “politically motivated”, like he has dismissed the APA? Or is it just possible that these scientific and educational organizations have actually based their conclusions on objective research?
You can listen to NARTH, a self-admitted anti-gay organization. Or you can listen to all the major medical and mental health organizations in the world. Seems like a no brainer to me.
“Also, 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.4”
This must be propaganda…it shows homosexuality in a negative light.
BAD AUTHORS…go away
LOL