Brokeback Propaganda

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You would probably say that they do, and then demand that watermelons and men have a right to marry…

You are a silly guy on sooo many fronts…

I could still choose to have sex with a watermelon.[/quote]

I’m sure there are some guys who could in fact have sex with a watermelon. That you are one of them comes as no surprise to me.

And if you "preferred a watermelon over a woman that does not entitle you so special rights!

[quote]Have you considered that it is similarly possible to have sex with someone that doesn’t fit your orientation?

The act is different from the orientation.[/quote]

If you CAN have sex with a woman you have then chosen to have sex with other men. Just as 87% of your bretheren have.

You have called it a “choice” a “preference” and “orientation.” I have some other names for it, but what’s in a name anyway?

The point is you can do it with both sexes but would rather have a man.

And you wonder why society (70% against gay marriage) is not accepting of what you do?

I would think that it would be odd if they were accepting of that entire sordid mess.

Go have sex with whomever you want it’s your life…but leave society out of it as we (the large majority) are not buying into it!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And saying that a tiny percentage of heterosexual men have for one odd reason or another had sex with another man does not prove that ALL or even a large percentage of men have or can have sex with other men.[/quote]

I never said otherwise. I only said that some straight men have had sex with other men.

Then again, it isn’t my claim to prove. You are the one making the claim, not me.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m sure there are some guys who could in fact have sex with a watermelon.[/quote]

Yep…you can have sex with someone (or something) that is not consistent with your orientation. That’s been my point all along.

The act is different from the orientation.

You can choose your sexual behavior. You cannot choose your sexual orientation. Do you see the difference now?

Trying to change your orientation can damage people. If you truly care about homosexuals, why would you want to hurt them?

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I’m sure there are some guys who could in fact have sex with a watermelon.

Yep…you can have sex with someone (or something) that is not consistent with your orientation. That’s been my point all along.[/quote]

Yea…I know…but it’s been my point all along that the overwhelming majority of heterosexual males DO NOT have sex with other males, as you suggested.

And you have given us zilch to back up that ludicrous statement!

Let’s stop the politically correct bull session.

Define “orientation” for all of us.

Define orientation.

Not changing DOES damage people! Why do YOU want to hurt them?

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
And saying that a tiny percentage of heterosexual men have for one odd reason or another had sex with another man does not prove that ALL or even a large percentage of men have or can have sex with other men.

I only said that some straight men have had sex with other men.[/quote]

Well, what does that prove?

Some heterosexual men have also killed people. Does that mean that you can make a case that the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men are killers?

However, 87% of ALL homosexual men have had sex with women!

Tell me how 87% can CHOOSE such an act.

Tell me how this is possible, or even desireable if homosexual men are only supposed to be attracted to other men?

Do you see the choice that’s involved?

Everyone else does!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yea…I know…but it’s been my point all along that the overwhelming majority of heterosexual males DO NOT have sex with other males, as you suggested.[/quote]

I never said any such thing. Quote please.

What I did say was that entire cultures have existed, whereby the majority of men engaged in sex with one another:

From the Wikipedia:

[quote]In North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, where gender- and age-structured relationships are the rule, male homosexual practices are reported to be widespread, engaged in by many individuals who do not regard themselves as homosexual.

Historically, in areas where same-sex relationships were embedded in the culture, such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, parts of Melanesia, Renaissance Italy, and pre-modern Japan, homosexual relationships were engaged in by a majority of the male population.[/quote]

Clearly, the North American culture is different, and thus heterosexual men are much less likely to have sex with one another. But that doesn’t prove YOUR claim, which is that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for straight men to have sex with one another. It only proves that a different culture predominates today, which discourages rather than encourages such behavior.

I already gave you a definition:

[quote]Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders. Sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime?different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to sexual orientation. Many adolescents?as well as many adults?may identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same gender, but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is particularly relevant during adolescence because it is a time for experimentation?a hallmark of this developmental period.[/quote]

The above statement on sexual orientation was developed and endorsed by:

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
National Education Association

I’ll repeat this for you once again:

That’s a pretty general statement. Does not changing damage…lesbians, for example?

On the other hand, every major medical and mental health organization has concluded that trying to change one’s orientation IS damaging. From the same “Just the Facts” declaration cited earlier:

[quote]Despite the unanimity of the health and mental health professions on the normality of homosexuality, the idea of “reparative therapy” has recently been adopted by conservative organizations and aggressively promoted in the media. Because of this aggressive promotion of “reparative therapy,” a number of the health and mental health professional organizations have recently issued public statements about “reparative therapy” as well.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Homosexuality and Adolescence states: Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. 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.6

The American Counseling Association has adopted a resolution that states that it: opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.7 Further, at its 1999 World Conference, ACA adopted a position opposing the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.8

The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.9

The American Psychological Association in its Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states: That the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.10

The National Association of Social Workers in its Policy Statement on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues: endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes.11 Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.12 NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so.13

As these statements make clear, health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through “reparative therapy” and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm. Many of the professional associations listed in the Resources section at the end of this factsheet are able to provide helpful information and local contacts to assist school administrators, health and mental health professionals, educators, teachers, and parents in dealing with school controversies in their communities.[/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Tell me how 87% can CHOOSE such an act.

Tell me how this is possible, or even desireable if homosexual men are only supposed to be attracted to other men?

Do you see the choice that’s involved?
[/quote]

It is a behavioral choice, not a choice of orientation. Sexual behavior is different from sexual orientation.

Why would gay men choose to have sex with a woman? Because of deeply seated religious and cultural expectations. When people are raised in an environment that tells them their basic orientation is a perversion, of course they are going to fight it and try to change.

As noted in the unanimous conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization, it is generally not possible to change one’s orientation, and trying to do so is damaging.

Zeb, I have answered all of your questions. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you:

[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?[/quote]

Until you answer my question, don’t expect me to answer any more of yours.

[quote]forlife wrote:

Clearly, the North American culture is different, and thus heterosexual men are much less likely to have sex with one another. [/quote]

Ha ha…ya think?

There goes your argument…

It is immpossible for the overwhelming majority! Most heterosexual men recoil at even the thought of sex with another man, much less actually be able to perform sex. That you don’t know this and can’t understand it demonstrates how twisted your thinking has become.

And with all of your many posts on this thread you have yet to answer this question:

“How can 87% of homosexual men have sex with a woman?”

They obviously enjoyed it or they could not have become aroused by a woman in the first place.

That means that while thy can and DO have sex with women all the time they simply want (and CHOOSE) to have sex with men as well.

Your entire argument is a sham!

And it makes me wonder (and I did not before this thread) exactly how “homosexual” most gays really are.

You have helped my cause greatly and I thank you!

[quote]forlife wrote:

It is a behavioral choice, not a choice of orientation.[/quote]

I HOPE EVERYONE HAS READ THE ABOVE

forlife is trying to say that 87% of homosexual men CHOOSE to have sex with women based upon “behavior” not “orientation.”


That makes ZERO sense my very confused friend!

You are sinking further and further into a bottomless pit of pretend words and rationalization.

It is apparent to all who (who are not politically correct-and who cares about them anyway) are reading this thread that you are just twisting in the wind.


[quote]Sexual behavior is different from sexual orientation.[/quote]


It might be time for you to define "orientation" for everyone. Homosexuals (and the politically correct) throw that word around as if it has actual meaning.

So..enlighten us on the specific meaning of that over used word please.





[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, I have answered all of your questions.[/quote]

No, actually you have not.

If you would like to answer please begin with these two:

  1. How can 87% of all homosexual men have sex with a women? When we have both agreed that heterosexual men do not have sex with other men. And the very definition of homosexual should mean that they are only attracted to other men.

  2. Define the word “orientation.” Since you have used this word repeatedly it should be easy for you to define it.

No more answers from me until you show me the courtesy of answering a question I have posed to you throughout this thread.

You continue to ignore this question, and I think the reason is obvious. The truth is that you CANNOT claim with a straight face that every major medical and mental health organization is so politically biased that the universal scientific conclusions from these organizations are worthless:

[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? [/quote]

Of course, you don’t want to admit this, because the scientific conclusions of all of these organizations directly contradict the religious agenda you have been promoting throughout this thread.

Zeb,

Imagine living in the world where most people were homosexuals yet you weren’t. Do you think you would be likely to be depressed/thinking of suicide? Do you think you’d be less careful about your life (riskier serx) because one of your big needs/wants - a wife - is completely outta reach and even simple sex with woman is hard to find and is considered shameful? A lot of the scientific data that you present can be easily explained by this line of thinking. It’s somewhat simular to increasing rates of education among women. It used to be VERY low. Clearly it was an indication of how dumb women were and they should have never been allowed to obtain higher education based on that reasoning.

[quote]forlife wrote:
No more answers from me…[/quote]

LOL you have not answered any of my questions…you have not even skillfully dodged them.

And I think that upon close inspection you realize that your entire argument is shown to be a sham.

Thanks for at least shedding some light on how twisted thinking leads to rationalization.

You may have helped some and you don’t even know it.

[quote]forlife wrote:

It is a behavioral choice, not a choice of orientation.[/quote]

Sorry, just had to post this nonsense once more for all to see…

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Bro, we have talked about this before. I’m opposed to acting on homosexual impulses, not having those impulses. So if you made that choice I would support that choice. It is not the thoughts that cause the problems, it’s acting on them. (“Homosexual” includes lesbians).

I appreciate your honesty. My point was that, even without the possibility of increased health risks, you would still be opposed to homosexuality. But at that point, it is entirely subjective rather than being based on objective evidence.[/quote]

Yes, I would be opposed to the acting out of homosexual thoughts because it is contrary to nature and the organs involved. I don’t believe that saying a rectum was not designed or evolved to have some guys zimmy in it is subjective. That is a biological fact.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
There are a lot of traits that don’t support survival of the fittest that still come up, that doesn’t make them functional.

Those traits aren’t, however, ruled out by “evolutionary evidence”. So you can’t really claim that there is evolutionary evidence against homosexuality.[/quote]

They aren’t ruled out, but are non-functional.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I think that upon close inspection you realize that your entire argument is shown to be a sham.
[/quote]

My entire argument is based on the unanimous scientific evidence on homosexuality presented by EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

You severely underestimate the intelligence of your audience if you think you can continue dodging that evidence as if it doesn’t exist.

Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to listen to the scientific community may make you feel better about your religious biases, but it doesn’t make your viewpoint any more compelling.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Yes, I would be opposed to the acting out of homosexual thoughts because it is contrary to nature and the organs involved. I don’t believe that saying a rectum was not designed or evolved to have some guys zimmy in it is subjective. That is a biological fact.
[/quote]

Why does there have to be only one biological purpose? Your mouth wasn’t specifically designed for oral sex either, but that doesn’t stop a lot of straight guys from using it for that purpose :wink:

And of course, as I pointed out earlier, more straight men perform anal sex than gay men.

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
And I think that upon close inspection you realize that your entire argument is shown to be a sham.

My entire argument is based on the unanimous scientific evidence on homosexuality presented by EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

You severely underestimate the intelligence of your audience if you think you can continue dodging that evidence as if it doesn’t exist.

Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to listen to the scientific community may make you feel better about your religious biases, but it doesn’t make your viewpoint any more compelling.[/quote]

When you answer the two questions above I will be glad to dismantle your feeble argument regarding certain institutions.