Brokeback Propaganda

[terribleivan]

[quote]miniross wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

Has anyone here noticed the common theme with all the homosexuals that come to debate?

Every one resorts to name calling and religion bashing. Keep watching - I’ll bet you they do it some more.

That is surely a massive assumption.

If they discuss in a popitive way about homosexuality, does that mean they are gay…

…Or does that mean you are an ignoant selt supposing shit?

[/quote]

This joker just proves my point!

It’s the typical liberal mantra - throw in emotion and insults because you can’t prove your point.

Thanks mini!

[Gleemonex]

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

It’s the typical liberal mantra - throw in emotion and insults because you can’t prove your point.[/quote]

And that’s the typical conservative mantra – accusing the other side of having a monolithic “mantra” when you don’t have anything tangible to say.

Now that we have that out of the way, I’m still waiting for any logical arguments that back up the religious dogma in this thread.

-Glee

[Gleemonex]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

BE A MAN?

As in act like a man?

Talking to the wrong “guy.”

:)[/quote]

Tell you what: I’ll worry about who I talk to. You just worry about trying to make sense of your cognitive dissonance.

Oh, and act like a man.

-Glee

[Headhunter]

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

It’s the typical liberal mantra - throw in emotion and insults because you can’t prove your point.

And that’s the typical conservative mantra – accusing the other side of having a monolithic “mantra” when you don’t have anything tangible to say.

Now that we have that out of the way, I’m still waiting for any logical arguments that back up the religious dogma in this thread.

-Glee[/quote]

A logical argument cannot back up a religious argument. Logic and faith are 2 different things.

[ZEB]

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
ZEB wrote:

BE A MAN?

As in act like a man?

Talking to the wrong “guy.”

Tell you what: I’ll worry about who I talk to. You just worry about trying to make sense of your cognitive dissonance.

Oh, and act like a man.

-Glee[/quote]

Glee-

That might be what terribleivan is talking about.

The politically correct, seem to think they have carte blanche to attack anyone personally who does not follow their line of thought.

I’ve put forth my ideas on this thread in a very direct way. I’ve cited my sources and I have tried to leave personal attacks out of the equation.

And you enter the thread with what?

“Act like a man?”

Come on…

[forlife]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
A logical argument cannot back up a religious argument. Logic and faith are 2 different things.
[/quote]

I agree with you here. I don’t criticize folks for placing their faith in whatever belief system that provides meaning in their lives.

I usually only speak up when someone tries to claim there is absolute objective evidence for their subjective beliefs. As if they need such evidence in the first place…it’s about faith, right?

If people want to condemn homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t claim that science supports their stance.

(Yes, I said that I was done with the thread. But gay men, like women, have the right to change their minds on a moment’s notice

[miniross]

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
miniross wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

Has anyone here noticed the common theme with all the homosexuals that come to debate?

Every one resorts to name calling and religion bashing. Keep watching - I’ll bet you they do it some more.

That is surely a massive assumption.

If they discuss in a popitive way about homosexuality, does that mean they are gay…

…Or does that mean you are an ignoant selt supposing shit?

This joker just proves my point!

It’s the typical liberal mantra - throw in emotion and insults because you can’t prove your point.

Thanks mini![/quote]

This has nothging to do with leberalism.If you see the drinkning thread, i was posting at the same time.

So in fact it was alcohol fuelled fury and poor spelling that was the root cause of that outburst. On the other thread, it was bacardi and dr pepper.

And i can swear and be unemotional.

We British can do that.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
If people want to condemn homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t claim that science supports their stance.

[/quote]

And some folks condemn homosexuality based on their religious beliefs. And they also think it’s wrong from statistical health data as well.

[Lorisco]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
If sexual behavior or tendency is a choice, then gays can choose not to engage in gay sex.

Obviously sexual behavior is a choice. Nobody claimed otherwise.

Sexual orientation, however, is not a choice.

[/quote]

Then you can choose to not stick your zimmy in a non-sexual organ like the rectum.

[Lorisco]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
If people want to condemn homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t claim that science supports their stance.

And some folks condemn homosexuality based on their religious beliefs. And they also think it’s wrong from statistical health data as well.
[/quote]

Don’t forget evolutionary science. According to a survival of the fittest model, being gay is a defect that is non-functional to carry on the species.

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And some folks condemn homosexuality based on their religious beliefs. And they also think it’s wrong from statistical health data as well.
[/quote]

I have yet to meet anybody that is opposed to homosexuality and doesn’t also have a religious or cultural belief that it is wrong. Not to say they don’t exist, but if so I think they are rare.

People who are either neutral or in favor of gay rights tend to interpret the available scientific evidence very differently from the fundamentalists. To me, that implies a confirmatory bias on the part of those with a religious belief.

Not that you aren’t sincere, but I think that your interpretation of the evidence is heavily slanted by your religious views.

The same could be said of me (being obviously pro-gay). It’s possible that my interpretations of the evidence are similarly slanted.

The fairest way to know the truth is to go to neutral scientific sources. NARTH is not going to provide that, and neither are the pro-gay sites. The major medical and mental health organizations are most likely to be truly neutral and fair in the design and interpretation of their studies.

And if you go to those organizations, they clearly conclude that a) homosexuality is not a mental illness, b) people do not choose their orientation, c) people cannot generally change their orientation, and d) attempting to change one’s orientation can be damaging to the individual.

[forlife]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Then you can choose to not stick your zimmy in a non-sexual organ like the rectum.
[/quote]

If I made such a choice, would you still be opposed to homosexuality? What do you think about lesbians?

[forlife]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Don’t forget evolutionary science. According to a survival of the fittest model, being gay is a defect that is non-functional to carry on the species.
[/quote]

If that were the case, why would homosexuality still exist? It would have died out long ago. Homosexuality may actually be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective:

Homosexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom, especially in species closer to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexuality, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males.

For a representative discussion of homosexuality as an evolutionary trait in humans:

Evolutionary theory proposes that adaptive traits are reproduced more successfully than maladaptive traits. Accordingly, natural selection should favour heterosexuality as it facilitates reproduction and the propagation of genes. However, the question becomes, what has maintained homosexuality in a small but consistent percentage of the human population? Research into the evolutionary and hormonal factors associated with a homosexual orientation have yielded provocative but inconsistent results. It also suggests that human sexual orientation, and in particular homosexual orientation, is too complex to be described by one simple model or a single research discipline. The current paper treads a new path and emphasises an integrative approach for the understanding of homosexuality. The authors examine the combined effects of evolutionary factors and neurohormonal processes on the development of a homosexual orientation. It is suggested that research into the topic could benefit from an examination of and change in some of the assumptions upon which much past research has been based.

http://cogprints.org/2163/

[ZEB]

Okay, you got tired and wanted a breather and now you are back. That’s okay with me as you have plenty of answering to do relative to the “other statements” that you made.

I will save those for later-for now I’ll simply refute your utter propaganda:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I have yet to meet anybody that is opposed to homosexuality and doesn’t also have a religious or cultural belief that it is wrong.[/quote]

Now that’s not a very scientific way to go about figuring out who is not fond of your lifestyle.

And I suggest that you are all wet with that statement as about 70% of the people who have been polled in various nationwide polls stated that they were very much against homosexuals marrying.

However, only about 24% of Americans consider themselves “fundamentalist” relative to their religious leanings.

Perhaps the other 56% just think that it’s wrong! Can something seem wrong without someone relying on their religion to persuade them?

Yes, of course they can!

People who are either neutral or in favor of gay rights tend to interpret the available scientific evidence very differently from the fundamentalists. To me, that implies a confirmatory bias on the part of those with a religious belief.

I am against all who discriminate against homosexuals.

So…see how wrong you can be?

And in addition to this the 25% or so who are in favor of gay marriage for example, are quite liberal. Being liberal and politically correct is a good indicator that that person will
agree with homsexual marriage

Not that you aren’t sincere, but I think that your interpretation of the evidence is heavily slanted by your religious views. The same could be said of me (being obviously pro-gay). It’s possible that my interpretations of the evidence are similarly slanted.

We are all swayed by something other than the pertinent facts. And as you said, you have a larger bias than anyone on this board!

Personally, I have stated my postion many times. I think that homosexuality is wrong for every single front there is!

With that said I do think that two consenting adults have every right to pursue any sort of sexual activity that they want…and they should not be discriminated against for doing so.

The fairest way to know the truth is to go to neutral scientific sources.

There are none available. Organizations are either politically correct or they are not!

And if you go to those organizations, they clearly conclude that a) homosexuality is not a mental illness,

It was until the early 70’s when the
politically correct APA sold their sole to the powerful gay organizations.

I showed you an article on that want to see it again?

OWNED

people do not choose their orientation,

You have not even defined “orientation” for us. In fact you used other words to describe what you felt. words like “preference” and “choice” were typed BY YOU to defend your actions.

You let the truth slip out, it’s all over. Can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube!

The posts are there for everyone to see and I will gladly point that out as I promised at the top of this post.

[quote]people cannot generally change their orientation
[/quote]

Thousands have indeed left homosexuality and they say they are very happy being heterosexual! Are they ALL liars? Simply because you have not yet “changed” does not mean that everyone has remained homosexual.

Want to see the studies again?

attempting to change one’s orientation can be damaging to the individual.

Not attempting to “change” IS damaging to the individual!

Want to see those statistics again?

Oh and welcome back I was actually getting board. I think we can squeeze another 20 pages out of this thread.

[forlife]

[quote]forlife wrote:
The fairest way to know the truth is to go to neutral scientific sources.

ZEB wrote:
There are none available. Organizations are either politically correct or they are not![/quote]

You have claimed that one of the organizations I’ve cited in the past (the American Psychological Association) is “politically correct”, and thus their conclusions are worthless.

Are you making a similar claim against every other major medical and mental health organization? Do you truly believe that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, etc. are all so politically biased that their research and conclusions on homosexuality are invalid?

As an aside, my main reason for “leaving” the thread earlier was that it was turning into an e-penis war rather than a sincerely objective discussion. I’m not going to get into trading insults with you, or trying to show that I’m smarter than you. If you are interested in a genuinely constructive discussion, I don’t mind continuing.

[ZEB]

forlife,

PAY ATTENTION PLEASE!

Do you think because you dropped off the site for a few days you can come back and ignore what you stated earlier?

Not hardly.

Now I respectfully insist that you respond to the following statements that you made:

forlife wrote:

1.[quote]I think most gay men would tell you that they probably could have sex with women…[/quote]

Please explain how 87% of gay men could have had sex with women. Yet, “most” heterosexual men cannot have sex with other men.

2.[quote]Just like straight men probably could have sex with other men…[/quote]

As stated above, most heterosexual men do not have sex with other men. And you have shown NOTHING that would refute this.

3.[quote]Straight men could also choose to have sex with other men (and sometimes do).[/quote]

Again…ZERO proof. This seems to be mindless wishful thinking to rationalize why 87% of all homosexual men have had sex with women.

4.[quote]The sexual act is a choice.[/quote]

This is certainly your grandest of statements.

Choice as in YOUR CHOICE. So much for the born that way claim.

The rest of what you state is really all blather after reading that one sentence!

IT’S A CHOICE!

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Please explain how 87% of gay men could have had sex with women. Yet, “most” heterosexual men cannot have sex with other men.[/quote]

Don’t confuse “cannot” with “have not”. Whether or not people choose to have sex with someone that is incompatible with their orientation is driven by factors such as religion and cultural expectations.

As stated above, most heterosexual men do not have sex with other men. And you have shown NOTHING that would refute this.

See #1

[quote]3.Straight men could also choose to have sex with other men (and sometimes do).

Again…ZERO proof. This seems to be mindless wishful thinking to rationalize why 87% of all homosexual men have had sex with women.[/quote]

I provided proof from several medical and mental health organizations to the effect that straight men do sometimes choose to have sex with other men. Of course, the majority do not…why would they when it is contrary to their orientation, and when there are severe religious and cultural consequences for doing so?

[quote]4.The sexual act is a choice.

This is certainly your grandest of statements.

Choice as in YOUR CHOICE. So much for the born that way claim. [/quote]

Misportrayal of my statement. I said the sexual ACT is a choice. Sexual ORIENTATION is not.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:

I said the sexual ACT is a choice. Sexual ORIENTATION is not.[/quote]

The typical heterosexual male “cannot” have sex with another male. Hence, when you say “the sexual act is a choice” (for homosexuals) you are saying that you CAN have sex with females but CHOOSE males instead!

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:

I provided proof from several medical and mental health organizations to the effect that straight men do sometimes choose to have sex with other men. Of course, the majority do not…why would they when it is contrary to their orientation…[/quote]

You have once again committed an honest error, in attempting to defend the indefensable

Contrary to their “orientation?” Then you are basically stating that homosexuals are in fact “oriented” to have sex with women (as well as men) since 87% of them do!

You can’t have it both ways…well at least not in this debate.

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The typical heterosexual male “cannot” have sex with another male.[/quote]

Where is your proof?