Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
846

[quote]skor wrote:

I haven’t followed the thread closely and this comment might have been made already. But Zeb, I want to say that IF the above facts are true, MOST of them can be explained by the fact that society is NOT accepting of gays and they don’t feel free expressing their sexuality. [/quote]

The fact that homosexuals have a shortened life span, contract more STD’s, have a MUCH higher rate of AIDS, have a higher rate of all communicable disease, are more promisucuous, smoke more, drink more and use more drugs than the general population might just have a little bit to do with the rate of: anxiety, depression and suicide.

Oh…sure you can blame society but when you think about it we are all really our own worst enemy.

When you eat too much and not move around enough you get fat…and you’re not happy about it…

When you drink too much you can become an alcoholic and you are not happy about it…

When you use drugs to escape the reality of life if you become addicted you end up not very happy…

Um, I guess you can blame society for all of that and much more but when it comes down to it the person to blame is looking at you in the mirror each day.

847

ZEB,

[quote]ZEB wrote:
[…]
How is it in any way correct for a man to leave his wife, two young children and his faith in order to live the life of a homosexual?[/quote]

Alright, I’ll say one more thing here, because this thread is really getting insance: ZEB, you have by far overstepped your boundaries here. It’s nice and fine to discuss whatever comes to mind in these forums. Even when things get a bit heated and personal, that’s alright, and we’re all here for that.

What is not alright is when you start telling people (forlife in this case) what they should do in their personal lives, and judging decisions they made. For the last few pages you have been posting quite patronisingly and inappropriately that his personal life decisions were wrong and he will regret them. While I respect whatever beliefs or convictions you may have, that goes IMO too far, even if you obviously think you are trying to do the “right thing”. I’m not forlife so I can’t speak for him, but if you tried that with me, I would tell you to fuck off.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy our discussions and respect you as a well arguing opponent, but I think in this case you’re going too far - give it a rest.

Makkun

848

Compelling, Zeb. Share your rock-solid objective evidence for Jesus with those Nigerian followers of Allah. No doubt they will be convinced by your proof, and follow the real god! Because we all know that only christianity is based on objective truth (as opposed to the subjective emotions and experience that are fodder for all the other religions!).

More objective truth? You’re back to speaking in generalities and half-truths, Zeb. I’m really curious how what you’ve said here applies to me, an actual gay man (as opposed to the stereotypes you are so fond of promoting). I’m in great physical shape, and Allah willing, I will have a longer than normal lifespan. I don’t have any STDs, nor am I at higher risk for getting a communicable disease through promiscuous behavior. I’ve never smoked or tried drugs, and I have maybe a glass of wine each month. I’m not anxious, depressed, or suicidal. So tell me again how homosexuality is inherently damaging to a person’s life?

849

[quote]makkun wrote:

Alright, I’ll say one more thing here, because this thread is really getting insance: ZEB, you have by far overstepped your boundaries here. It’s nice and fine to discuss whatever comes to mind in these forums. Even when things get a bit heated and personal, that’s alright, and we’re all here for that.

What is not alright is when you start telling people (forlife in this case) what they should do in their personal lives, and judging decisions they made. For the last few pages you have been posting quite patronisingly and inappropriately that his personal life decisions were wrong and he will regret them. While I respect whatever beliefs or convictions you may have, that goes IMO too far, even if you obviously think you are trying to do the “right thing”. I’m not forlife so I can’t speak for him, but if you tried that with me, I would tell you to fuck off.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy our discussions and respect you as a well arguing opponent, but I think in this case you’re going too far - give it a rest.

Makkun[/quote]

I would agree with you under different circumstances. However, the discussion was quite heated prior to forlife getting involved.

When he entered this thread he used his homosexuality and various personal information to make a point. Since he is using his personal information as a tool to win an argument it is only fair that I be able to use that same information in this debate.

I also think that when the man needed good advice he got politically correct bull crap in it’s place. Yes I do think I am helping him by at least giving him the right advice. Will he take it? Hope springs eternal.

If someone does not want their own personal life story to be used as pertinent information on a thread I suggest that they not bring it up in the way that forlife did.

As far as you entering the thread again, I welcome it. You are a bright guy and we have had many go arounds.

But…you are basically “pro” gay marriage and quite liberal in other areas. Your reentering the thread at this point is not surprising.

850

[quote]forlife wrote:
Compelling, Zeb. Share your rock-solid objective evidence for Jesus with those Nigerian followers of Allah. No doubt they will be convinced by your proof, and follow the real god! Because we all know that only christianity is based on objective truth (as opposed to the subjective emotions and experience that are fodder for all the other religions!).[/quote]

We have been off topic for several pages. If you want to go further off topic I have no problem with that.

Jesus is an historical figure if you don’t know that then you need to so some research. I can help you with that if you like.

It would be a start.

[quote]The fact that homosexuals have a shortened life span, contract more STD’s, have a MUCH higher rate of AIDS, have a higher rate of all communicable disease, are more promisucuous, smoke more, drink more and use more drugs than the general population might just have a little bit to do with the rate of: anxiety, depression and suicide.

More objective truth? You’re back to speaking in generalities and half-truths, Zeb. [/quote]

Generalities? Sure. half truths? Nope!

Are all fat people who abuse their bodies unhappy? No.

Are all homosexuals unhappy? Certainly not. However we were discussing the over all picture. I think that’s fair.

If you abuse yourself in some manner as stated in the list above you will (over all) be less happy than someone who does not partake in those things.

If you disagree with that you are disagreeing with common sense.

As I stated earlier, congratulations for wearing a condom! And now I can congratualte you for living a more healthful lifestyel than many (not all and never said all) of your brethern.

Leaving your wife and two young children…well that’s another matter. And if the world was not so politically correct you would have gotten good advice regarding this move.

It’s a shame. Oh that’s right I forgot there is no shame anymore…

851

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jesus is an historical figure if you don’t know that then you need to so some research. I can help you with that if you like.[/quote]

As opposed to, say, Muhammad or Buddha?

Then stop speaking out of your ass about homosexuality being inherently damaging. Preach (if you must) against the evils of unprotected sex, drugs, and alcohol. But quit implying that it is impossible for a homosexual to have a healthy, happy, life.

My wife and I left each other. Quit making it sound as if it was a unilateral decision. We were BOTH unhappy being in a mixed orientation marriage. Had we not listened to judgmental assholes like you, we never would have married in the first place.

852

ZEB,

[quote]ZEB wrote:
makkun wrote:
[…]
I would agree with you under different circumstances. However, the discussion was quite heated prior to forlife getting involved.

When he entered this thread he used his homosexuality and various personal information to make a point. Since he is using his personal information as a tool to win an argument it is only fair that I be able to use that same information in this debate.[/quote]

I tend to see these debates here not as something to be won (more than once, posts here from the conservative side have made me rethink or readjust some views). IMO, it shouldn’t be about winning for neither of you.

Also, I think it is in general legitimate that someone brings in personal experience as part of an argument - and he spoke openly about his feelings. That takes some guts, but it doesn’t mean that he can’t be hurt, when his words are turned against him - you’re an old poster here, some of us are not.

If I remember correctly, he didn’t ask any of us for advice. And an internet forum is not the appropriate place for personal advice if you ask me. You might have offered it in a PM, and given when asked. That would have been better in my opinion.

There is such a thing as etiquette: Just because he opens up, doesn’t mean it’s acceptable that everyone jumps on it. At least not where I come from.

[quote]As far as you entering the thread again, I welcome it. You are a bright guy and we have had many go arounds.

But…you are basically “pro” gay marriage and quite liberal in other areas. Your reentering the thread at this point is not surprising.[/quote]

Thanks. Those are kind words. But, I will really try to resist, as my longish post earlier was the last I had to say to the original topic. There are so many other heated debates here just waiting to plunge into…

See you there! :wink:
Makkun

853

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jesus is an historical figure if you don’t know that then you need to so some research. I can help you with that if you like.

As opposed to, say, Muhammad or Buddha?[/quote]

I replied as I did because you stated the following:

The first part of sharing all “rock solid eveidence” is to first point out that Jesus lived.

Glad that you agree that he did in fact live.

Now you have to determine how he did the things he did. How this all relates to the Bible. And finally how this will effect your entire existance.

[quote]Are all homosexuals unhappy? Certainly not.

Then stop speaking out of your ass about homosexuality being inherently damaging.[/quote]

The homosexual act is dangerous. You wear a condom. But that still does not do much for the very thin lining of the other mans rectum.

Do you want me to post the thread on why anal sex (yes even with a condom) is dangerous?

We did that already and I don’t see that it’s made much of a difference in your attitude. Hopefully other readers have read those statistics and are wiser now.

The statistics for people who are obese demonstrate that they have a much greater chance of contracting diabetes, heart disease, cancer and stroke. And because of that a shorter life expectancy than for those who are at the proper body weight. That does not mean that ALL people who are obese die young.

You want me to talk about the homosexuals who live a really really long time and are perfectly healthy both physically and emotionally?

I don’t have any statistics on that, do you? If you do please post them.

[quote]Leaving your wife and two young children…well that’s another matter.

My wife and I left each other. Quit making it sound as if it was a unilateral decision. We were BOTH unhappy being in a mixed orientation marriage. Had we not listened to judgmental assholes like you, we never would have married in the first place.[/quote]

Well, so much for keeping it polite as you said you were going to do. I guess no one can’t count on you to keep your word…

And it also seems that you are judging me by calling me names. Of course that is always allowed with the politically correct. If your actions are challeneged by anyone you are allowed to lash out and pretty much say what’s ever on your mind. But those who question the legitimacy of something like homosexual marriage should NEVER offend anyone. I understand the rules, and thanks for the reminder.

It might be a better idea if you look beyond what you THINK I am and more at what YOU have done. Not just to yourself but to your two young children.

In a couple of days you might get tired of posting to me (I hope not). And I will be just a bad memory for you. Someone who actually told you that you were doing something wrong (oh my how awful). But while I will be just a bad memory you will still have to deal with the situation that you created by walking out on your two young children. You will be dealing with that decision for the rest of your life.

Why don’t you do the right thing right now before you all of those years pass and you are filled with regret.

854

[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB,

ZEB wrote:
makkun wrote:
[…]
I would agree with you under different circumstances. However, the discussion was quite heated prior to forlife getting involved.

When he entered this thread he used his homosexuality and various personal information to make a point. Since he is using his personal information as a tool to win an argument it is only fair that I be able to use that same information in this debate.

I tend to see these debates here not as something to be won (more than once, posts here from the conservative side have made me rethink or readjust some views). IMO, it shouldn’t be about winning for neither of you.[/quote]

That’s a nice thought. And I agree with it’s sentiment.

I brought into a thread a long long time ago that I was a Christian, and other related personal experience’s (as have others with similar stories).

And through the years I have been repeatedly attacked based upon what I have given regarding my personal life.

Funny, I don’t remember you rushing to my defense. Once again, which side you are on plays a much larger role in how you veiw these sorts of things.
It’s easy to forgive those who are on your side.

I think you are guilty of this (as we all are).

I guess those would be your rules as you have stated (“if you ask me”). But those are not the real rules of the forum. At least not up to now.

Oh, I know where you are coming from: the left!

And the left has two sets of rules. One for themselves and one set for everyone else. Whether you realize it or not!

Back to specifics:

If he did not like my comments after the first go around he should not have responded. But he did respond again and again attempting to rationalize his actions.

Does he need my approval?

Why does he care what a faceless, nameless entity on a message board thinks?

You might further ask yourself why he is continuing to post knowing that I am going to repeat my original thoughts as many times as I have the opportunity to do so. Unless I am given a different set of facts, or more information related to these current facts.

Odd behavior coming from one who is supposed to be “hurt.” I think rather he enjoys this exchange. Or is he actually thinking more deeply about what he did and is reconsidering?

Who knows?

But since he brought it up and continues to bring it up, I will continue to do the right thing and give him my true feelings on the matter.

As I stated earlier it doesn’t seem to bother you much when I, or other Christians are getting bashed (in other unrealted threads) becuse we brought up the fact that we are Christians, and other personal information.

How come you have never defended any of us?

I think we both know the answer to that question. Two sets of rules.

You are a (more)liberal and while you may not do it, there is nothing wrong (in your handbook) about one of “your own” personally attacking someone because of their faith or any personal data attatched to that faith.

You may not applaud that behavior. All we know is what you have done. And you have never defended a conservative for any sort of (what someone would consider) unfair treatment.

Your Record Speaks For Itself!

Makkun, I think you are well intended but you are also blind to the reality of the totality of what your side does on a consistent basis.

855

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The first part of sharing all “rock solid eveidence” is to first point out that Jesus lived.[/quote]

The existence of a historical Jesus is debatable, but even if you had absolute proof in that regard, you have established nothing more than has been established for other religious leaders like Buddha and Muhammad. My question was why I should follow your brand of religion as opposed to the thousands of other religions out there.

More specifically, aggressive anal sex can be dangerous. An act, by the way, which is committed in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Homosexuality does not require having aggressive anal sex. Again, preach against the specific acts which you consider unhealthy, rather than generalizing against a particular sexual orientation.

No, I want you to stop stereotyping and realize that sexual orientation is not inherently “right” or “wrong” by any objective standard. As long as homosexuals avoid the specific habits you have listed, why would you be opposed to homosexuality? Unless, of course, you have a religious agenda…

You made this a personal discussion when you crossed the line and passed judgment on my life. I was happy to keep it at a respectful academic level until you made that mistake. Don’t expect to exercise that kind of arrogance without getting burned in the process.

Do you not even have a hint of conscience about continuing to misportray my statements like this? You can say that I “walked out on my two young children” all you like, but it doesn’t change the facts. Even if I had wanted to stay in the marriage, my wife DID NOT want to stay married.

We were both UNHAPPY in our marriage. YOU think that we should have stayed married, without having the faintest idea what our marriage was like, or of the environment it created for our children. YOU claim that by returning to our marriage, we would all be better off. YOU have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

856

[quote]skor wrote:
ZEB, I’m still awaiting response to my post below (p.32). Would you really let vroom be right in his response to me? :wink:

You should realize that the only way you can claim that there is a scientific evidence that gayness is “bad” (even given that the “facts” presented by you are true) is if you control for factors other than gayness. For example, let’s allow gay marriage, introduce very strong anti-discriminatory policies and give it some time. If in a generation time the happiness of gays did not increase, you might claim that their lifestyle is destructive. Not before that.

[/quote]

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

It is not possible for us to control all the factors that go into all the different people in a population. But, if you assume that, in general, the homosexual population has the same problems/factor that the heterosexual population has, with the exception of sexual preference, then you can see the effect of the gay lifestyle.

If you believe that assumption is a stretch, then you do not understand statistics. How big does the population really need to be. I would suggest that millions of homosexuals in the homosexual population would provide no greater margin of error than the hundreds of millions of heterosexuals.

You suggestion of legalizing gay marriage to see what happens is akin to us letting a new stain of cancer run it’s course in your body to see what happens. Once you allow it to progress to an advanced stage, it’s pretty unlikely it will go into remission.

857

[quote]forlife wrote:
Compelling, Zeb. Share your rock-solid objective evidence for Jesus with those Nigerian followers of Allah. No doubt they will be convinced by your proof, and follow the real god! Because we all know that only christianity is based on objective truth (as opposed to the subjective emotions and experience that are fodder for all the other religions!).

[/quote]

Why is it that you are so insistant on seeing rock solid evidence? Doesn’t that defeat the meaning of faith?

I would like to have rock solid evidence that all the murders on death row actually commited the murder. But, do you know what? Most murders don’t admit that. They deny it to the end. Does that mean they didn’t commit the crime? Of course not!

I will offer you this to think on, though. How is it that Saul, a man who persecuted Christian with every breath he took, was responsible for the death of thousands of Christian, and was a respected and admired leader in the Jewish community, converted to Christianity?

How is it that Saul did a complete turnaround as he became Paul, and lived a life of selfless devotion to God, and suffered for the cause of Christ?

Do you have rock solid evidence to tell me why? No…I didn’t think so.

Saul became Paul because he experience a change in his heart that could only come from God. Unless you have experience that change, you will never understand. But at that point, you no longer need rock solid evidence. You are grounded in your faith…in your reasoned faith!

858

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
But, if you assume that, in general, the homosexual population has the same problems/factor that the heterosexual population has, with the exception of sexual preference, then you can see the effect of the gay lifestyle.[/quote]

You can’t assume this, because of what was said earlier about cause and effect. For example, if you find that gays are more depressed on average than heterosexuals, what does that really mean? How do you rule out the possibility that it is because of how gays are treated by others? You can’t, unless you control for that variable by ensuring that the gays in your sample are treated the same.

859

[quote]forlife wrote:

More specifically, aggressive anal sex can be dangerous. An act, by the way, which is committed in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. [/quote]

Yet again, you are attempting to support your own situation. You mean to say, even if it is bad, other people are doing it, so it is OK? This is the selfishness I have been talking about.

I don’t know how gentle you are when you are participating in anal sex, that that is not the point. The point is that anal sex is dangerous behaviour. If you can not admit to that, it clearly shows that you have been blinded by your own situation. Very sad.

860

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
But, if you assume that, in general, the homosexual population has the same problems/factor that the heterosexual population has, with the exception of sexual preference, then you can see the effect of the gay lifestyle.

You can’t assume this, because of what was said earlier about cause and effect. For example, if you find that gays are more depressed on average than heterosexuals, what does that really mean? How do you rule out the possibility that it is because of how gays are treated by others? You can’t, unless you control for that variable by ensuring that the gays in your sample are treated the same.[/quote]

You are trying to create a scenario that will never happen. Everyone is treated differently because of sexual orientation, looks, age, rece, religion, etc… If you have figured out a way to control for everything, then let us know. But, I don’t believe you have.

Perhaps we could get a good sample of data from a highly populated homosexual area…say San Franciso. Homosexual there do not seem to suffer much discrimination. In fact, homosexuality there is openly flaunted in parades. Would the statistics change? Not likely.

861

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Why is it that you are so insistant on seeing rock solid evidence? Doesn’t that defeat the meaning of faith?[/quote]

Because as far as I know, this life is the only one I have. It is logical to choose happiness and peace, rather than misery. Unless there is rock solid evidence that misery in this life will lead to happiness in a future life, I would be a fool to choose misery here and now.

How is that the Buddha devoted his life to selflessness with such single-minded passion? How about Ghandi and his commitment to peace for all men, stemming from his faith in Hinduism?

Does religious fervor prove the objective reality of one’s faith? No, it only proves that one is committed to a particular set of beliefs.

862

ZEB,

[quote]ZEB wrote:
[…]
I brought into a thread a long long time ago that I was a Christian, and other related personal experience’s (as have others with similar stories).

And through the years I have been repeatedly attacked based upon what I have given regarding my personal life.

Funny, I don’t remember you rushing to my defense. Once again, which side you are on plays a much larger role in how you veiw these sorts of things.
It’s easy to forgive those who are on your side.

I think you are guilty of this (as we all are).[/quote]

As you can see, and has been shown quite often, the conservative Christians on these forums are not exactly a minority - there are some strong posters (with you among them). I don’t condone, and never have taken part, in bashing you guys for being religious (although you know as well as I do that I am an atheist) - opposing you, no problem, as we all disagree on so much. So far, I have not seen Stellar or you being brought to your needs - and I haven’t so far seen any of you guys being criticised on how you lead your marriage/relationship/sexuality. It’s just what sets me off - it’s a breach of my rulebook. Should I take offense with more things - perhaps, but this topic is just the one that keeps me involved. Is that biased? It sure is.

[…]

[quote]Oh, I know where you are coming from: the left!

And the left has two sets of rules. One for themselves and one set for everyone else. Whether you realize it or not![/quote]

I guess you try to imply that I use different measures for conservatives and lefties - possible, I’m only human.

[quote]Back to specifics:

If he did not like my comments after the first go around he should not have responded. But he did respond again and again attempting to rationalize his actions.

Does he need my approval?

Why does he care what a faceless, nameless entity on a message board thinks?

You might further ask yourself why he is continuing to post knowing that I am going to repeat my original thoughts as many times as I have the opportunity to do so. Unless I am given a different set of facts, or more information related to these current facts.

Odd behavior coming from one who is supposed to be “hurt.” I think rather he enjoys this exchange. Or is he actually thinking more deeply about what he did and is reconsidering?

Who knows?

But since he brought it up and continues to bring it up, I will continue to do the right thing and give him my true feelings on the matter.[/quote]

That’s your right. I think it was a bit insensitive, but that might be my sensitive tree hugging persona coming through.

[quote]As I stated earlier it doesn’t seem to bother you much when I, or other Christians are getting bashed (in other unrealted threads) becuse we brought up the fact that we are Christians, and other personal information.

How come you have never defended any of us?

I think we both know the answer to that question. Two sets of rules.

You are a (more)liberal and while you may not do it, there is nothing wrong (in your handbook) about one of “your own” personally attacking someone because of their faith or any personal data attatched to that faith.[/quote]

You see, herein lies your fault: You seem to imply that “we” are all some kind of organised group here. I am not responsible for idiotic behaviours of people whom I share some of my views with. Neither are you - and there is idiotic statements a plenty from both sides. I stay out of the knife fights, as the ones who take part in them will not listen to any form of reasoning. I just thought that you might.

[quote]You may not applaud that behavior. All we know is what you have done. And you have never defended a conservative for any sort of (what someone would consider) unfair treatment.

Your Record Speaks For Itself![/quote]

I hope so. Because so far, I hope it has been quite respectable.

Might be. How about you? Any thoughts were you could be biased?

Makkun

863

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
You are trying to create a scenario that will never happen. Everyone is treated differently because of sexual orientation, looks, age, rece, religion, etc… If you have figured out a way to control for everything, then let us know. But, I don’t believe you have.[/quote]

You could look at the psychological health of gays living in more liberal countries (like Europe) as opposed to in more fundamentalist countries (like the U.S. and the Middle East) as a start. In fact, psychological and sociological research along these lines has been conducted. Would you be surprised to learn that once you control for those other variables, gays are the same as heterosexuals on all measures of psychological health?

One of the first studies in that regard was conducted by Evelyn Hooker in 1957:

[quote]Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology. [/quote]

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. For example, in 1971 Freedman used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980).

Although some psychologists and psychiatrists may personally hold negative attitudes toward homosexuality, every major medical and mental health organization now considers homosexuality to be unrelated to psychopathology.

864

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Yet again, you are attempting to support your own situation. You mean to say, even if it is bad, other people are doing it, so it is OK? This is the selfishness I have been talking about.[/quote]

Where did I say that I participate in aggressive anal sex (as if it were your business if I did)? My point was that if you plan to criticize behaviors, you should apply the same criticism to everyone that demonstrates those behaviors, whether they are gay or straight.

865

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Why is it that you are so insistant on seeing rock solid evidence? Doesn’t that defeat the meaning of faith?

Because as far as I know, this life is the only one I have. It is logical to choose happiness and peace, rather than misery. Unless there is rock solid evidence that misery in this life will lead to happiness in a future life, I would be a fool to choose misery here and now.

How is it that Saul did a complete turnaround as he became Paul, and lived a life of selfless devotion to God, and suffered for the cause of Christ?

How is that the Buddha devoted his life to selflessness with such single-minded passion? How about Ghandi and his commitment to peace for all men, stemming from his faith in Hinduism?

Does religious fervor prove the objective reality of one’s faith? No, it only proves that one is committed to a particular set of beliefs.[/quote]

You mention Buddha and Ghandi, but you still dodge the change in Saul. Buddha and Ghandi were not brutal murderers and killers. They did not experience a radical change. So, again, I ask, how do you explain the change Saul experienced when he coverted to Christianity?