[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
wblah blah blah …
The government doesn’t discriminate at all in terms of who can become a farmer, and the government does not discriminate at all in terms of who can enter into a marriage. There is no person who is incapable of being a farmer, and there is no person who is incapable of entering into a marriage. Let me repeat that so you can comprehend: There is no person who is disallowed from entering into a marriage as marriage is defined.
[/quote]
So, if the definition of marriage included the phrase “a man and a woman of the same race”, by your logic, no one would be disallowed from being married, since there are other members of their race in the country, thus they are allowed to marry (so long as it is within their race).
Would you be ok with that?
Remember, by your logic, no one is actually disallowed from marriage with that definition.
Hey Cap it seems that the slippery slope is in action in the Netherlands and Belgium, the first two countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals.
Now who would have ever thought that polygamists would want the same rights?
After having been through this in the long and epic (and evil) ‘Brokeback propaganda’ thread, here once more the position of the medical and psychiatric community and its consensus on reparative ‘therapies’ (bold formatting is mine):
[…]The ACA Governing Council passed a resolution in 1998 with respect to sexual orientation and mental health. This resolution specifically notes that ACA opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation. In addition, the resolution supports dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health and appropriate interventions and instructs counselors to “report research accurately and in a manner that minimizes the possibility that results will be misleading” (ACA Code of Ethics, 1995, Section G.3.b). In 1999, the Governing Council adopted a statement “opposing the promotion of reparative therapy as a cure for individuals who are homosexual.” In fact, according to the DSM-IV-TR, homosexuality is not a mental disorder in need of being changed. With this in mind, we have a difficult time discussing the appropriateness of conversion therapy as a treatment plan. Regardless, there are clients who seek out counselors in hopes of changing their sexual behaviors, orientation or identity, so the ACA Ethics Committee conducted a review of the literature on reparative therapy.
We found that the majority of studies on this topic have been expository in nature. We found no scientific evidence published in psychological peer-reviewed journals that conversion therapy is effective in changing an individual’s sexual orientation from same-sex attractions to opposite-sex attractions. Further, we did not find any longitudinal studies conducted to follow the outcomes for those individuals who have engaged in this type of treatment. We did conclude that research published in peer-reviewed counseling journals indicates that conversion therapies may harm clients (refer to the full article posted on the ACA website for references).[…]
APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.
As a general principle, a therapist should not determine the goal of treatment either coercively or through subtle influence. Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or “repair” homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
The “reparative” therapy literature uses theories that make it difficult to formulate scientific selection criteria for their treatment modality. This literature not only ignores the impact of social stigma in motivating efforts to cure homosexuality; it is a literature that actively stigmatizes homosexuality as well. “Reparative” therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment’s accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients. APA encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determines “reparative” therapy’s risks versus its benefits.
[…]The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a “cure.”
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association and defining the standard of the field, does not include homosexuality as a mental disorder. All other major health professional organizations have supported the American Psychiatric Association in its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-gender sexual desires among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among health and mental health professional organizations.
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.
Conversion therapists have different views on what constitutes effective treatment. Religious groups often encourage celibacy for their “ex-gay” followers, so lack of sexual contact is construed as successful treatment. Most studies published in the mental health literature use heterosexual behavior as a treatment goal. Much of the effectiveness of conversion therapies is asserted in clients’ testimonials or in articles in publications that do not meet accepted research standards. A careful analysis of other evidence fails to justify these recent claims. The studies that have appeared in legitimate journals are generally quite old and share common methodological problems. Studies of conversion therapy are not based upon a random sample of homosexuals who are randomly assigned to different treatments and are then compared, but on a group of homosexuals who have sought treatment because they are unhappy with their sexual orientation. Furthermore, the studies all rely on clients’ self-reported outcomes or on therapists’ post-treatment evaluations. As a result, all conversion therapy studies are biased in favor of “cures” because clients of conversion therapy are likely to believe that homosexuality is an undesirable trait to admit and may feel pressure to tell their therapist that the treatment has been successful. Similarly, conversion therapists have an interest in finding that their treatments are successful. The potential for what is known as “social desirability bias” in self-reported outcomes is most obvious in studies of group approaches to conversion therapy. In one group approach, Hadden finds that 37% of 32 research subjects reported that they had shifted to heterosexuality. But these results must be viewed with skepticism, since therapy groups implicitly encourage individuals to report that they meet the group’s standards, even when this is not true. Misclassification is another widespread flaw in these studies that will inflate reported success rates. Researchers are likely to misclassify bisexual people as homosexual, which makes it more likely that clients will pursue heterosexual behavior even without treatment. A finding that bisexual men can be taught to strengthen their heterosexual behavior is not equivalent to changing sexual orientation. The earliest study attempting to show reversal of homosexual orientation through long-term psychoanalytic intervention reported a 27% success rate in “heterosexual shift.” But only 18% of those research subjects were exclusively homosexual to begin with. Fifty percent of the successfully treated men were more appropriately labeled bisexual. Other studies that report higher success rates share this classification problem. For instance, Mayerson and Lief report that half of their 19 subjects were engaging in heterosexual behavior 4.5 years post-treatment. These subjects were actually bisexual going into treatment, however. Exclusively homosexual subjects reported little or no change in that study. Another psychoanalytic study reported virtually no increase in heterosexual behavior in a group of homosexual men. One of the studies used most often to demonstrate that homosexuals can be “changed” was conducted by Masters and Johnson. This study also included a number of subjects who were not primarily or exclusively homosexual in their stated orientation, however. Finally, follow-up of those subjects who meet the subjective criteria for “successful change” in sexual orientation is either poor or nonexistent in conversion therapy studies. Adequate follow-up is likely to uncover cases of reversion to homosexual behavior, which would further reduce the therapy’s success rate. Birk described a combination approach group format for treating homosexuality and claimed that 38% of his subjects achieved “solid heterosexual shifts.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged that these shifts represented “an adaptation to life, not a metamorphosis,” and that homosexual fantasies and activity are ongoing, even for the “happily married” individual. Similarly, a religiously-oriented conversion therapy program described by Pattison and Pattison reveals that more than 90% continued to have homosexual fantasies and behavior after treatment. More comprehensive examinations of conversion therapy studies have been published elsewhere. Those reviews show that no study claiming success for conversion therapy meets the research standards that would support such a claim. Finally, it should be noted that almost all published research on conversion therapy deals with male homosexuals, not lesbians. Presumably, this reflects a general devaluation of women in clinical research agendas, as well as a greater tolerance on the part of some heterosexual males for lesbians than for gay men. Nevertheless, conversion therapists continue to apply their findings to women, even though their own studies do not support that extension.
So, to summarise, reparative ‘therapy’ has been continuously shown to be based on methodologically problematic research, has been shunned by peer reviewed journals and is not recommended by all relevant professional bodies in the field. Nicolosi et al. represent the fringe of their profession, and while some of their arguments are actually being taken seriously (and may have merit), their overall findings tend to be biased and have not found the necessary recognition to be accepted as reliable (and indeed necessary) therapies.
IMHO it doesn’t really matter whether homosexual behaviour or a same sex orientation are caused by nature or nurture - they are within the variance of normal mammal behaviour, and science has long ago moved on from trying to cure something that doesn’t need to be cured.
Makkun
PS: Happy Christmas, ZEB, haven’t seen you in a long time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Majin wrote:
Since when did sexual orientation become about being able to have sex? Sure lots of ‘bisexual’ inmates out there, they seem to be able.
Yes, I’ve heard the “inmate excuse” before. But as we both know these people are NOT inmates. They travel about freely and actually choose to have sex with both men and women. That’s called “bisexuality” and it is far, far more prevelent than homosexuality.[/quote]
That’s a selective answer. I was talking about your contention that sexual orientation is determined by one’s ability to have sex. Which is why your ‘bisexuality prevalent’ statement comes from someone’s eager attempt to present most gays as bisexuals.
You’re the one saying gays are bisexual. Here: “You further prove my point that most homosexuals are in fact bisexual.”
It’s the most logical thing to say since everyone claiming to have proof of the opposite tries to deceive and is against it on basis of faith, and not proof at all.
[quote]There are many theories which claim that it is something that happens during your formative years as a child, and growing which causes this abnormality. But, certainly no one absolutely knows for sure. But it is at least as good a bet that it is nurture and not nature which causes homosexuality.
[…]
Do I think you made a conscious decision one day to be attracted to someone of the same sex? Of course not, how foolish, and I never suggested such a thing. But I do think that we are all to a large degree the product of our upbringing."[/quote]
All those studies fail to present any unique criteria that would develop into homosexuality even a quarter of the time. Gays are everywhere in all kinds of families and all parts of the world. Because of that, there must be something in the nature, not just nurture, like a predisposition. Furthermore homosexuality is widely observable in the animal world(close to 500 vertebrate species). Abusive fathers too?
No, but he said that you can’t choose it, which was my point.
[quote]As far as people changing I could post volumes of data which supports the fact that people can and do change their preference. It happens all of the time. In fact, about 30% or so of all who go through therapy are indeed changed.
What do you say to that? Because some have tried and failed means that no one can change? How ridiculous.[/quote]
I say that data is bogus. If anything, in our society , probably every single gay teenager ‘tried’ and many would do anything in the universe to not let anyone know. Manipulative polls to produce a few scary numbers is a boring old trick.
If its genetic, its a defect (since life wants to reproduce). If its a choice, then the person has mental problems, because they are choosing not to reproduce, which is against nature.
I think both can be summed up as nature weeding out the weak.
[quote]Majin wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Majin wrote:
Since when did sexual orientation become about being able to have sex? Sure lots of ‘bisexual’ inmates out there, they seem to be able.
Yes, I’ve heard the “inmate excuse” before. But as we both know these people are NOT inmates. They travel about freely and actually choose to have sex with both men and women. That’s called “bisexuality” and it is far, far more prevelent than homosexuality.
That’s a selective answer. I was talking about your contention that sexual orientation is determined by one’s ability to have sex. Which is why your ‘bisexuality prevalent’ statement comes from someone’s eager attempt to present most gays as bisexuals.[/quote]
Okay, I guess every answer is selective. I didn’t think your prison argument was very good. But if you want to push it why don’t you tell me how many heterosexual men (why not use men?) who are in prison are having sex with other men? Now tell me how many bisexual men are having sex with other men. Lastly tell me how many homosexual men are having sex with other men.
Actually, if you can find this information I’d be very interested in reading it. If you cannot find anything on it then I guess my original comment will have to stand whether you or I like it or not.
Secondly, there are far more bisexuals than true homosexuals-PERIOD. If 87% of all homosexuals claim to have had sex, or are currently having sex with someone of the opposite sex then they are in fact bisexuals, end of argument. Unless of course you want to make up another definition of “bisexual”.
[quote]
You’re the one saying gays are bisexual. Here: “You further prove my point that most homosexuals are in fact bisexual.”[/quote]
If most homosexuals have had sex, or are having sex with someone of the opposite sex then they are in fact bisexual. I don’t think we need to argue about that. There are still homosexuals left, those who will not, could not, have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
[quote]Now that doesn’t quite make sense does it? If you could show me some science which proves that homosexuality is genetic then of course that would be the end of the debate. Otherwise, you, like so many other social liberals are simply spewing forth what has been fed to you by those claiming without any proof at all that homosexuality is genetic.
It’s the most logical thing to say since everyone claiming to have proof of the opposite tries to deceive and is against it on basis of faith, and not proof at all.[/quote]
Well, I’m stating that I don’t know for sure how one becomes homosexual. And if the other side was honest they would be saying the same thing. However, they have not been honest. The “born that way” lie has been spread for so long that people (like you) actually believe it.
Then how can one change from homosexual to heterosexual if it is in fact genetic? And according to the best data that I could find about 30% of all who undergo therapy do in fact drop their homosexual lifestyle and in fact do not even have homosexual urges later on.
Explain that one if it’s genetic?
Hey, even if one person changed how can it be genetic. See the problem with that lie?
Of course you would say that they are bogus. You’re a good example of a person who wants to believe that you are born that way, so you do. And if you are truly happy as you are then you have no desire to change and that’s that. But, many are not happy living the homosexual lifestyle and seek an alternative. And for them there is hope.
In one study 422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity." Are they all liars? Are they all homophobic? Come on, you know better than that.
And in fact before the APA was hijacked by the militant left homosexuality was considered a mental disorder which was treatable. But of course that’s all been washed away with politically correct nonsense.
Anyway, read the following data with an open mind. And keep in mind that while therapy doesn’t work for eveyone (are all alcoholics helped?), it does work for many:
Regent University’s Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.
After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.
Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.
Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: “Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model.”
Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: “Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father.”
Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.
Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: “An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.”
Dr. Dickson’s study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child’s later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.
His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: “It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity.” (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).
Dr. Dickson’s study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: “An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection.”
Dr. Dickson continues: “Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother.”
Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: "?In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography?.
MacIntosh, H. (1995) Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183.
422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity."
Here’s one from 1998. It mentions that 99% of homosexuals later said that “treatment can be effective.” Are they traitors to your cause? Or are they just people who want to lead a happier, healthier and better life?
"Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA:
Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable."
Throckmorton asks a very interesting question and one OF MANY that you have yet been unable to answer. And by the way this is from 1996:
"Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4: 283-305.
?" submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no patients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors ? that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches." (p. 287)
And of course Dr. Spitzers landmark study from 2001:
"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001)
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”
According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”
If it is not genetics then could it be that there could have been something, or a few things go wrong in their childhood which lead to their same sex attraction?
I think so, and some other folks who have studied the issue and are not afraid of the militant homosexual response just might have an answer.
We need to understand whether homosexuals have any choice in their condition, and whether it is really possible for them to change. We also need to understand the inevitable consequences that befall a society as the homosexual agenda advances. Did you know that this current state of things in the Western world is not a new phenomenon, and is addressed directly in God�??s Word?
The Transformation from Perversion to “Normal”
Various segments of the human race have approved of and practiced child sacrifice, cannibalism and witchcraft down through the centuries�??not to mention virtually every imaginable form of sexual behavior. Who has the right to make the distinction between what is right and good on the one hand, and what is degraded and perverted on the other?
When the ancient Israelites were preparing to enter the Promised Land, God instructed Moses that certain vital guidelines were to be passed on to the people. It was God�??s purpose that Israel be very different from the surrounding nations. Both in Egypt, where the people had dwelt for more than two centuries, as well as in Canaan where they would be settling, a multitude of sexual perversions were common. Detailing many of these practices in Leviticus 18, God emphasized that Israel was to be different from the nations around them. The fornication, incest, homosexuality and bestiality that were commonly practiced by the Canaanites had caused the land to "vomit out" the inhabitants, declared the Creator (Leviticus 18:28). If Israel fell into these degenerate practices, God warned, the same consequences would come upon them.
Ancient Canaan not only approved of perverted sexual practices, but also included them as part of their idolatrous religious rites. And they were far from alone in their approach. The classical cultures of Greece and Rome had a very tolerant attitude toward homosexuality. Plato, the famous pupil of the Greek philosopher Socrates, wrote in his Symposium of a banquet at which a speaker calls the homosexual Socrates�?? attention to the "fair boys and youths, whose presence now entrances you." Considering ever-greater manifestations of love, Plato describes love between men as higher than love between man and woman. This attitude was commonplace in Greek civilization.
It was against this background that the Apostle Paul wrote a scathing rebuke of first century Greco-Roman civilization. Paul emphasized that the founders of that vaunted civilization had not wanted to retain God in their knowledge and had been given over by their Creator to minds devoid of judgment, utterly incapable of drawing proper distinctions in life (Romans 1:28).
In the centuries after Paul wrote, the morality of the Bible had a profound effect on the Western world. Previously accepted practices such as infanticide, abortion and homosexuality came to be considered beyond the pale. Eventually, they were forbidden by law wherever Christianity in its various forms held sway.
History clearly records that throughout the ensuing centuries, there were many in positions of power�??both secular and ecclesiastical�??who considered themselves above the law, and indulged their sexual tastes regardless of the law. Even so, the Bible was acknowledged as the source of standards, and became a fundamental source of law in Western society.
As intellectuals in western countries have sought to abandon the concept of a real God, and with it all God-imposed restraints, the pace of moral decay has picked up speed. One of the watershed dates in this process was the 1948 publication of the Kinsey Report. The New York Times Book Review later described Professor Alfred Kinsey of Indiana University as the man whose studies started the "sex revolution." His conclusions still form the basis of much of what is taught in sexual education classes in schools across the U.S. Even in the last 20 years (1982�??2002), the Kinsey Report has been cited as evidence more than 600 times in court cases involving child custody, rape and homosexual "marriage."
Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences is a remarkable book that lays bare many facts about Dr. Kinsey and much of his so-called research. Its author, Dr. Judith Reisman, has also served as consultant to three U.S. Department of Justice administrations. Among the startling facts that she reveals are that Kinsey was a sadistic bisexual who seduced his male students and coerced his staff, their wives and his own wife into performing in pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey is also alleged to have recruited pedophiles in America and abroad to sexually violate as many as 2,000 infants and children to obtain his data on "normal" child sexuality. Dr. Reisman also shows that much of Kinsey�??s supposed scientific data was intentionally falsified. He secretly trashed approximately three-quarters of his data, and based his statements about "normal" male sexuality on a group that included 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds of other prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. In short, according to Dr. Reisman, Kinsey was a fraud who "suffered an untimely death due, at least in part, to �??orchitis,�?? a lethal infection in his testicles that followed years of sadistic, orgiastic �??self-abuse.�??"
Based on "research" by Dr. Kinsey, and on pressures from an increasingly powerful homosexual lobby, the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of emotional and mental disorders. Behavior previously regarded as deviant was suddenly considered "normal"�??even though using Dr. Kinsey to determine "normal" sexual behavior was akin to "letting the inmates run the asylum"!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If its genetic, its a defect (since life wants to reproduce). If its a choice, then the person has mental problems, because they are choosing not to reproduce, which is against nature.
I think both can be summed up as nature weeding out the weak.[/quote]
So, what your saying is it is alright to discriminate against people with genetic defects?
I think you just talked yourself in a lulzy shit hole, HH.
Former California State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin observes that “mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children.�?� Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent” (“Homosexuality: Truth Be Told,” Regent University Law Review, vol. 14 #2, 2001�??2002). In the Netherlands, for instance, the age for legal sex has already been lowered to 12! Quoting from various pro-homosexual publications and Web sites, Baldwin documents that child molestation is often promoted under the euphemism of “intergenerational love.”
This reminds me of something Plato, “the famous pupil of the Greek philosopher Socrates” wrote about: “Plato wrote in his Symposium of a banquet at which a speaker calls the homosexual Socrates�?? attention to the “fair boys and youths, whose presence now entrances you.” Considering ever-greater manifestations of love, Plato describes love between men as higher than love between man and woman. This attitude was commonplace in Greek civilization.”
For all of the talk about homosexuality being genetic, there is too much hard evidence that proves otherwise. An extensive study of twins, the Bailey-Pillard Study, showed that when one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, only about half the time is the other sibling homosexua, not all the time as purely genetic programming would dictate. Neurologist Mark Breedlove of the University of California at Berkeley emphasized that 30 years of research “have made it clear that experience can dramatically alter the structure and function of the brain” (Newsweek, Nov. 13, 1995). The structure and activity patterns of the brain reflect experience, not just the biology one is born with.
If homosexuality is not entirely a matter of biological destiny, then where does it originate? A variety of factors contribute. The influences of family, community and individual experience, as well as inherited temperament, all interact to make us what we are. Today, many young people are in the throes of gender and sexual confusion because they have never developed a healthy gender identity. They are vulnerable, and are prime candidates to become entangled in homosexuality. Jaded adults, ever seeking some new thrill to satiate the senses, may also turn to bisexuality or homosexuality as they search for a new "kick."
Homosexuality was rampant in the Greco-Roman society of Paul’s day, but the Apostle never sought to minimize or rationalize away its sinfulness. Instead, he held out help and hope for individuals willing to repent of homosexuality or of any other sin. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Paul emphasized that sexually immoral Corinthians actually overcame their sinful lifestyles. With the help of God's spiritual power, they became able to genuinely repentant and to clean up their lives and walk in "newness of life" (Romans 6:4).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If its genetic, its a defect (since life wants to reproduce). If its a choice, then the person has mental problems, because they are choosing not to reproduce, which is against nature.
I think both can be summed up as nature weeding out the weak.[/quote]
Bullshit or every non procreating ant, bee, hornet ,wasp, most gorillas, sea lions, etc are either defect or have mental problems.
Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.
Next example: The human menopause.
Why do we continue to exist after half of us lose the ability to procreate?
Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.
Next example: The human menopause.
[/quote]
Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.
Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.
Next example: The human menopause.
Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.[/quote]
No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.
It is an almost uniquely human trait.
Why?
Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?
Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?
OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?
Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?
Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.
Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.
No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.
I thought you meant a woman’s period or menstruation cycle. The logic still states that if an individual can not reproduce then they become extinct. While Menopause does stop women form being able to reproduce later on in life Homosexuals can never reproduce on their own. Thus the two homosexuals seed or DNA does not extend on into further generations.
Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?
I have not read your other posts, but I am assuming that you mean they can reproduce at one point in life and not in another. If you mean that a species can never reproduce that species would then become extinct as there would be no off spring.
Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies.
In the example of menopause, you are correct in that they are still important and contributing members to society. Many homosexuals have contributed to many causes, but they on their own can not reproduce which goes against God’s plan
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
or if you believe in evolution, “the process of natural selection” in that homosexuals do can not reproduce on their own and thus do not survive through successive generations.
Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.
Next example: The human menopause.
Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.
No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.
It is an almost uniquely human trait.
Why?
Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?
Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?
OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?
Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?
Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.
Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.
[/quote]
The various critters that have types that aren’t able to prcreate breed in much larger numbers then the average one child per 9 month carrying phase. Also we don’t need homosexuals as a species, in fact, we would probably be better off as a species if there wasn’t homosexuals. So you’re other point is invalid. And homosexuals can reproduce if they chose too. But they chose not too which is totally different then the certain critters you refered to.
Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.
Next example: The human menopause.
Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.
No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.
It is an almost uniquely human trait.
Why?
Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?
Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?
OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?
Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?
Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.
Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.
[/quote]
The various critters that have types that aren’t able to prcreate breed in much larger numbers then the average one child per 9 month carrying phase. Also we don’t need homosexuals as a species, in fact, we would probably be better off as a species if there wasn’t homosexuals. So you’re other point is invalid. And homosexuals can reproduce if they chose too. But they chose not too which is totally different then the certain critters you refered to.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
wblah blah blah …
The government doesn’t discriminate at all in terms of who can become a farmer, and the government does not discriminate at all in terms of who can enter into a marriage. There is no person who is incapable of being a farmer, and there is no person who is incapable of entering into a marriage. Let me repeat that so you can comprehend: There is no person who is disallowed from entering into a marriage as marriage is defined.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So, if the definition of marriage included the phrase “a man and a woman of the same race”, by your logic, no one would be disallowed from being married, since there are other members of their race in the country, thus they are allowed to marry (so long as it is within their race).
Would you be ok with that?
Remember, by your logic, no one is actually disallowed from marriage with that definition.[/quote]
You left out a key part of the argument in the “blah blah blah.” No one is disallowed from holding himself out as married no matter whom his partner may be, male or female. There is no prohibition on same-sex marriage as such - what there is is a specific tax benefit assigned to the particular union of a man and a woman. Having a law assign a particular benefit based upon a particular action is what we’re discussing.
Now, to get to how you are attempting to frame the question, race as a category for anything under the law - with the exception of something like sickle-cell anemia research grants - bothers me quite a bit, because those distinctions are not based on any rational basis.
But do you really think that race is the equivalent of gender in terms of whether one can have a rational basis for making a distinguishing judgment? Do you think women should be subject to the draft? Are you upset if paternity leave isn’t automatically equal to maternity leave? Do you think there should be separate men’s and women’s collegiate sports teams?
Those are questions that need to be answered if you’re going to say it’s irrational to make distinctions on gender.
But really, this question is even more basic: The issue is whether the government can rationally favor a type of union that, generally speaking, is likely to produce children.
