[quote]Mick28 wrote:
fWrong, there is no “list” other than the one that was concocted by the pro homosexual group that took over the APA.[/quote]
Do you ever get tired of lying? The APA and every other medical and mental health organization has documented 35 years of research on homosexuality. They say you’re wrong, get over it.
[quote]You’re confused, I’m not the one who likes things up my ass.
[/quote]
So you claim, but research shows a higher incidence of closeted homosexuality among people that are the most homophobic.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
fWrong, there is no “list” other than the one that was concocted by the pro homosexual group that took over the APA.
Do you ever get tired of lying? The APA and every other medical and mental health organization have documented 35 years of research on homosexuality. They say you’re wrong, get over it.
[/quote]
How many times will you repeat this tired mantra? Are you going to sit here and tell us that gay activism in the 1970s had no influence on the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II? Do you honestly believe gay activism has no influence on the APA and other medical organizations now?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
So they have a preference for men…BUT…any port in a storm will do.
[/quote]
Speaking out of your ass again? If it was all about finding a port in a storm, I would have stayed married to my wife of 9 years and saved us all a lot of heartache.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And since gays join up NOT for the purpose of procreation, then its something else. What, I do not know. But since its different than the purpose of love as we define it, then marriage is out.
[/quote]
So an infertile heterosexual couple cannot love one another and should not be allowed to marry? What a dipshit.
I bet the folks arguing in favour of prop 8 in this thread are tickled pink that the fucking intellectual giant known as clip11 has joined their side, haha.
Here’s one of the opening paragraphs from the Spitzer paper I linked back on page 15:
[quote]The proponents of the view that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality argue for the elimination of
any reference to homosexuality in a manual of psychiatric disorders because it is scientifically incorrect, encourages
an adversary relationship between psychiatry and the homosexual community, and is misused by some people
outside of our profession who wish to deny civil rights to homosexuals. Those who argue that homosexuality is a
pathological disturbance in sexual development assert that to remove homosexuality from the nomenclature would
be to give official sanction to this form of deviant sexual development, would be a cowardly act of succumbing to
the pressure of a small but vocal band of activist homosexuals who defensively attempt to prove that they are not
sick, and would tend to discourage homosexuals from seeking much-needed treatment.[/quote]
There you have it, folks. Gay activism influenced the update to the DSM-II.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But marriage doesn’t under the DOMA. The federal government does not recognize same-unions and will not provide federal benefits whatever name they are given in the state they are recognized. That’s why the focus should be on overturning this law and getting benefits on the federal level.
[/quote]
That’s true, but the greater the critical mass of states with gay marriage laws the more pressure there will be to overturn DOMA.
Marriage is between a man and a woman IMO. However I think we either need to end govt regulation of marriage as it’s a religeous institute. Or have civil unions for the same rights minus tax breaks.
Even if you don’t like homosexuals you don’t need ot cause them unnecesary pain if their partner dies or is in the hospital, etc.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gay marriage serves one social purpose - social validation of gay relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships. It has nothing to do with the ordering of child raising or the taming of men during their reproductive years.
[/quote]
Oh really? Tell that to my two children. I happen to think that it is in their best interest if my partner and I were legally married, with the associated stability, responsibilities, and privileges of marriage.
You can’t ignore the thousands of gay couples who have children.
Besides, your logic falls apart when you consider all the straight couples who marry and never have children.
[quote]NeelyDan wrote:
I bet the folks arguing in favour of prop 8 in this thread are tickled pink that the fucking intellectual giant known as clip11 has joined their side, haha.
You’re a tool, clip11, always remember that.[/quote]
Im a tool…well whether im a tool or not…I got what I wanted…proposition 8 passed!!!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If the Cali Supreme court once again ignores the wishes of the people, I am afraid the gay riots will be a mere gate rush to a Cher concert compared to the rioting that will transpire. [/quote]
So you castigate gays for rioting in favor of equal rights, then in the same post promote rioting by anti-gays if Proposition 8 is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
That’s simply not the case, and I’d ask you to show me some statistics which prove that there is no danger in monogamous homosexual relationships and in fact if there even are that many truly monogamous homosexual relationships.
From what I’ve read most homosexual men have sex outside of there “regular” relationship.
[/quote]
Why waste our time? The moment we share such statistics, you will only whine about them being made up by medical and mental health organizations who are under the absolute control of the evil gay regime.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Like was said before gayness was once considered a mental disorder with appropiate treatment. Because of pc, it was taken off the list of mental disorders. Just because it was taken off the list doesnt mean there isnt treatment for someone who truly wants to be cured.
So yes it is a choice because there are ways to get help. Whether you choose to do so or not is a different story. Its like someone bipolar who mught say they was born that way. That may be, but theres treatment for that, so they dont have to stay that way. Whether they want to be treated or not is a different story.
[/quote]
Keep beating that drum…all the medical and mental health organizations don’t really care about the well being of gays, and are promoting lies about homosexuality because they are trying so hard to be politically correct.
God forbid that they actually mean what they say about homosexuality not being a mental illness, and about reparative therapy having a large potential for harm to gays that try to change their orientation.
One study showed that gays trying to change their orientation DOUBLE their risk of suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety, and drug/alcohol abuse following the therapy. Yet idiots like you continue to push people into aversion therapy, despite the damage that is done.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If the Cali Supreme court once again ignores the wishes of the people, I am afraid the gay riots will be a mere gate rush to a Cher concert compared to the rioting that will transpire.
So you castigate gays for rioting in favor of equal rights, then in the same post promote rioting by anti-gays if Proposition 8 is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
[/quote]
When will you begin targeting blacks and hispanics for their overwhelming support for Prop 8 instead of the Mormon church, which is white?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If the Cali Supreme court once again ignores the wishes of the people, I am afraid the gay riots will be a mere gate rush to a Cher concert compared to the rioting that will transpire.
So you castigate gays for rioting in favor of equal rights, then in the same post promote rioting by anti-gays if Proposition 8 is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
When will you begin targeting blacks and hispanics for their overwhelming support for Prop 8 instead of the Mormon church, which is white?
The Big Gay Hissy Fit of 2008 needs to end. [/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The fact is that the APA and these other medical organizations are heavily pressured by the gay lobby (as the Roman Catholic Church and Mormon churches have been recently), and it has influenced the science. [/quote]
Keep preaching, brother…the word of the Lord about the evil gays is true no matter what all the medical and mental health organizations say. They are all puppets for the evil gay empire!
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The fact is that the APA and these other medical organizations are heavily pressured by the gay lobby (as the Roman Catholic Church and Mormon churches have been recently), and it has influenced the science.
Keep preaching, brother…the word of the Lord about the evil gays is true no matter what all the medical and mental health organizations say. They are all puppets for the evil gay empire!
[/quote]
Yeah, uh, I actually provided evidence for this. Spitzer wrote about it in his paper. Keep preaching homosexuality, brother!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
How many times will you repeat this tired mantra? Are you going to sit here and tell us that gay activism in the 1970s had no influence on the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II?
Do you honestly believe gay activism has no influence on the APA and other medical organizations now?
[/quote]
Political activism can raise questions, but provides no answers. It is the job of science to do that, which is precisely what the medical and mental health organizations have done exhaustively over the past 35 years.
How about you? Do you believe that the CONCLUSIONS OF EVERY MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION ARE SO POLITICALLY BIASED THAT THEY ARE WORTHLESS? Seriously??
