[quote]ZEB wrote:
Did you notice that none of my posts came with a recommendation?
Once again, those who are NOT HAPPY with their current desires have an opportunity for change. I don’t think it’s up to you or I to determine who is happy and who is unhappy as we look at this group. All I want is for the liberals to stop saying that change is not possible and that homosexuals are “born that way”. This simply destroys the hopes of those who are not happy.
I don’t think I can make it any clearer than that. [/quote]
You really are a sad, dumb bastard. Hey, I have an idea… lets all treat gay people like shit and then tell them that they’re unhappy because they’re gay!
Yes, lets “look at this group”. Some of them are unhappy. I wonder why. Could it be:
(a)because they have an attraction to other men. Is homosexuality the problem? Should we advocate curing it?
(b)jackasses like you who do things (like post any statistic you can find that puts them in a negative light) that are aimed at making them feel like shit? Is bigotry the problem?
I’m sorry, I forgot for a second that you’re a fucking idiot, so let me answer it for you: its b. The problem isnt that they’re gay, so trying to make them ungay is not the answer. The problem is people like you.
If gay people didnt have to deal with people like you, they’d be much happier.
So, no, Dumbshit Neocon, us “liberals” aren’t trying to withhold therapy from anyone who needs it; its you who needs therapy, not them.
I would like to point out to some problems with how you handle your sources.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Caution, the following evidence may cause some to resort to name calling and personal attacks. Facts, are something that those on the left refuse to acknowledge.
It’s much easier to rationalize bad behavior, which kills those who participate in it, and also those who are quite innocent.
There is no group on earth (to my knowledge) that demonstrates riskier sexual behavior than the gay population! PERIOD!
Yes, there are many heterosexual people who use drugs and like anal sex. But according to the statistics this is incredibly prevalent in the gay community:
Just take a look at who is dying of AIDS faster than any other group-And no doubt who is spreading AIDS faster than any group as well by their promiscuity:
And not some right wing crazy propaganda this is from CDC STATISTICS
[/quote]
But in effect, you only quote (i.e. copy/paste without the appropriate referencing) not from the CDC, but from indeed religiously motivated conservative websites. Let’s have a look:
The above passage is directly lifted from the the Christian Coalition website. It may refer to CDC and other legitimate statistics, but only through the digest by - religiously motivated activists.
This is a direct lift from ‘Americans for Truth about Homosexuality’, which introduces itself as “… Americans For Truth is a rare single-issue national group on the other side of this critical “culture war” issue. Meanwhile, there are over a dozen national American “gay” groups with annual budgets ranging from just under $1 million to over $30 million working to advance this agenda �?? which threatens to criminalize Christian opposition to behavior that most Americans believe is wrong.” (from their ‘About us’ page) I think that statement really speaks for itself.
This is a direct lift from the ‘Family Research Council’ - their tagline is ‘Defending Family, Faith and Freedom’. It introduces itself as “The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.” (from their ‘About us’ page)
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners
with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10
[/quote]
Just Google searching this gives me (bolding is mine):
Family Research Council: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 “IS04C02”
Male Homosexuals. Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:. · The Dutch study of partnered … www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Myths and Facts About Homosexuality, Part 2
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times … www.family.org/socialissues/A000000683.cfm
Christian Coalition International (Canada) Inc. - 20:48
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male …
This one is again - you guess it - the Christian Coalition (Canada). Tagline ‘A vibrant majority, proudly Christian’.
What is my point? I think you may not see yourself as religiously biased in your ‘research’, but you do clearly use religiously motivated sources. And you don’t mark them as such, which in an academic context makes your argument questionable to say the least.
But let’s go a little further into your argument: you argue that people should read the list of ca. 50 studies you have posted to support your argument, again stating that they have no religious affiliations. I have now taken the time to look up the sources and quotes you give - and it took me quite some time. At first I thought you just did another (un-referenced) copy/paste job; then I had trouble locating your source, until indeed I found it: you’ve taken this list from the ‘Christian Medical and Dental Associations’ Homosexuality Statement’. The list is taken - with lots of conversion mistakes due to the crudeness of the copy/pasting - from the section on ‘Changing Sexual Orientation or Behavior’:
Now what does that tell us? It tells us that the main sources from which you get your listings are indeed openly declared religious (not to say conservative christian) websites. That itself is not necessarily a problem - for a discussion based on science though I would have hoped for more academic sources.
But you haven’t referenced them, and you have made the claim that the there is no link between your sources and religious arguments; and you have more than once claimed that your motive in this debate is more of a humanitarian than a religious.
Your first claim may be correct, as no researcher can really prevent ending up in a listing on the Internet. Your second claim I have more trouble to believe - you must have seen where you got your sources from, and you have not referenced so that others see where they are from. From one of your statements above, one may even think that what you quote stems from the CDC’s website. That is incorrect at best, misleading at worst. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that this was not done deliberately.
On the part of you telling people to read the list of sources you provided: I have spent considerable time to actually find full text original sources from your list - and so far, I’ve been unsuccessful. If you don’t have all those titles in your research library, I would hypothesise that you haven’t read all the sources yourself either, but have relied on the (religiously motivated) digests and quote list discussed above. They may still be valid sources - I personally do prefer academic and professional bodies’ assessments as per my earlier posts though. They have give robust defense to scientific counter-arguments - the Christian Coalition doesn’t, which makes it a less reliable source.
Therefore, in my opinion you do undermine your own argument by how you have structured it and how you have used your sources. If you’d like to strengthen your argument you would in my opinion would have to change that approach.
Makkun
PS: Also, I don’t agree with the content of most of your sources and the conclusions you come to, but that’s another argument.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Can’t be genetic, they can’t reproduce among themselves and pass the “gay gene” on.[/quote]
aaaahhhh
you cant pass on down syndrome either Einstein
or any of the other so called “spontaneous” germ line (made up by left the left conspiracy) mutations
well technically Down syndrome is not a mutation, but there are plenty of examples of spontaneous germline mutations (today is my b-day and I’ve been celebrating with my fam and I have had too many beers to remember actual examples) that occur,that means that you do not need to have the “gay” gene, it could occur by chance in your gonads and therefore passed on to your kids without you having it
[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Perhaps being gay is punishment for bad Karma on the part of the parents. What parent could stand watching their son prance out in lace and fishnet stockings?
There. Homosexuality is punishment for being a shitty parent early on.
Speaking of parenting, sounds like your parents slacked a little. What’s really scary is your profile reads “teacher”. Now that’s scary. You sound like a nightmare-of-a-teacher. Where do they allow people who talk and act like you to be teachers? Seriously, what kind of a teacher are you? I mean, you’re actually posting pictures of bikini models in “homosexuality, choice or genetic” threads on the internet man. What a loser.
From the same parents, my sister is straight, my older brother is straight, I’m a happily married man with a beautiful daughter and my younger brother is gay. Not sure your brilliant “bad parenting” theory is going to hold any ground “teacher” guy.
You are very, very confused and blinded by stereotyping. Search " gay muscle bears" on google. My brother is one of these. Very similar to modernlifeiswar’s picture.
If masculinity is a determining factor for a parents satisfaction in their son (according to you), my gay brother is a big masculine guy and has been in many fights and won. Usually people like you that pop off with the mouth. I don’t mean you any hostility, just trying to give you examples of gay dudes you might not want to fuck with. Then again, there isn’t really any way of knowing whether these “muscle bear” types of gay guys are actually gay. Considering their appearance, they don’t come even close to fitting the gay guy stereotype in your mind. I guess just be carefull on what insulting things you say about gay people in public, because you never know when “Karma” will come back to you.
[/quote]
I’m sorry that your brother is ill.
Being 6’7", 290, I enjoy insulting the ‘prancers’. If you or your brother are offended by what I say, that’s a whole load of tough shit.
I don’t like gays, especially the flaunters. Go gobble sausage in a back alley somewhere.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. I have experienced happiness as a gay man despite what all of those “studies” say that are driven by bible thumping “researchers”. I have also managed to remain disease free! Amazing what you can accomplish if you put your mind to it regardless of how much people try and change you and make you believe there is something wrong with you!
Speaking of statistics,
According to the U.S. Census Current Population Report on Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support:
- About 5 of every 6 custodial parents were mothers (84.4 percent) and 1 in 6 were fathers (15.6 percent), proportions statistically unchanged since 1994
According to a 1999 report of the Department of Health and Human Services:
-Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide before the age of 18.
-Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs before the age of 18.
-Both girls and boys are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.
This is a huge problem that is statistically getting worse as time goes on. If something doesn’t change (Straight men start going to therapy and learn how to take care and stay with their families) then our younger generations are going to continue to get worse and worse as time goes on meaning that our country is going to be ran by a bunch of people that are a product of these tragic statistics that all these straight men are causing. Zeb, Lorisco and anyone else into posting statistics on this forum that claim to be trying to educate and help the gay community with all of their what you call “phsycological problems, disease spreading problems,” are
(A)Simply Homophobic for whatever reason (primalfear).
(B) Religousley driven to do “Gods” work.
C) Just simply trying to make a difference in the world and educate the gay man on how risky it is to have unprotected anal sex with someone you don’t know (I doubt this group exists).
In my opinion, which is pretty obvious and should be to everyone else, this forum is populated with (A) and (B). For group (B) I can at least respect some of you because you are’nt just trying to “Win” this agrument, you are truly trying to do what you think is right, and trying not to be disrespectful. But it’s frustrating for me being gay and talking to this group because you have never felt the feelings I’ve felt, you’ve never had to live in my shoes, and you are very closed minded. And if you have lived in my shoes, for even a moment, your whole world would change. You’re argument is that gays have phsycological issues and spread disease. Everyone has phsycological issues. Everyone can spread disease if they have one and aren’t careful.
In the past growing up, I prayed and prayed to my God that I would not be attracted to men. Guess what, I’m still attracted to men just as much as I have always been. This told me that god still loves and accepts me just the way I am.
If by some chance, you fall into group (C), then yes, continue educating not only gay men but all sexual orientations on how risky sex with anyone can be because STD’s are real.
But I doubt that group (C) exists on this forum. Because all of the negative statistics that have been posted on this site about gay men are nothing compared to the domino effect that is going on in our our country right now caused by straight men. So group (C), if you exist, and truly care about our world, educate men who belong in the heterosexual world on how important it is to take responsibility for their actions (having kids). Our future as a country depends on it, truly.
P.S. I am not a liberal for those of you that keep calling me that and saying I have a liberal way of thinking. If the definition for liberal is-open minded, free thinking, logical, and gay, then maybe so. But unfortunately that’s not the definition for liberal. And you say it as if I would be the “loser” on this forum just because of a label.
Speaking of statistics,
According to the U.S. Census Current Population Report on Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support:
- About 5 of every 6 custodial parents were mothers (84.4 percent) and 1 in 6 were fathers (15.6 percent), proportions statistically unchanged since 1994
According to a 1999 report of the Department of Health and Human Services:
-Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide before the age of 18.
-Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs before the age of 18.
-Both girls and boys are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.
This is a huge problem that is statistically getting worse as time goes on. If something doesn’t change (Straight men start going to therapy and learn how to take care and stay with their families) then our younger generations are going to continue to get worse and worse as time goes on meaning that our country is going to be ran by a bunch of people that are a product of these tragic statistics that all these straight men are causing. …
[/quote]
This is very true - and this highlights the reason it is so important to society to encourage the formation and survival of male-female marriages. It should not be easy for a man to walk out on his responsibilities, or for a woman to do so for that matter - or for one parent to keep the other out of the children’s lives.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ModernLifeIsWar wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Any man who can look at her and not want to hit it should truly wish for a bullet in the head.
Why?
Because you’re a man. Duuuhhhhh.
[/quote]
Hmmm…nope, I’m not convinced. I still have the urge to stay living.
For a teacher, you don’t present a very good case on why I should wish for a bullet in the head.
You are the definition of an ignorant bigot. How could you possibly be a teacher? Not sure that I believe you. But then again, students tests scores in America these days are incredibly low as a whole. Maybe they are just a product of teachers(shity ones) like you.
Once again you offer no resistance when I point out the path your philosophies would head the country down. You may as well just admit that what you really want is for homosexuality to be eradicated.[/quote]
Cap now resorts to a classic strawman argument. For those who are not familiar:
"The arguer is attempting to refute his opponent’s position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position�??the “straw man"�??not held by his opponent.”
I never once said such a thing or even implied it. But you have no response to my legitimate and reasonable argument so you resort to using a strawman, I’m not surprised. Here is what I said (for the umpteenth time): If someone who currently has same sex urges WANTS to change then they should have the opportunity to try. How does that harm others who want to continue in their homosexual pursuits?
What part about that don’t you understand?
Then offer proof regarding your point. I don’t think that’s asking too much. But, you can’t because there is none. All of the evidence lines up on my side, and that’s why you’re forced to resort to strawman arguments.
To date you have not refuted even ONE of the studies that I have posted, not one! In fact, you’ve still probably not even read one.
The entire homosexual argument would do far better without YOU arguing for it, you only harm it. You show up with no facts of your own only emotional tirades. But, this doesn’t surprise me as that is what most on your side bring. I will say however that you are indeed the weakest of the many that I’ve debated on this topic.
[b]Is there a “right” or “wrong” in this debate?
It’s not a fact that alcoholism is wrong, no matter how many of them have liver disease, other health problems and broken families. It’s their choice and they live with the consequences. And besides not every alcoholic gets liver disease or has a broken family, right?
Everyone has the right to choose how they want to live their life. I only offer facts to inform those who might be interested.[/b]
Again, if you want to continue this debate please bring some facts to the table. Read at least 5 of the 60 or so studies. Then explain (with a little detail) why those studies are not accurate.
And when you’re done doing this explain how even ONE “homosexual” can change if it’s genetic.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Did you notice that none of my posts came with a recommendation?
Once again, those who are NOT HAPPY with their current desires have an opportunity for change. I don’t think it’s up to you or I to determine who is happy and who is unhappy as we look at this group. All I want is for the liberals to stop saying that change is not possible and that homosexuals are “born that way”. This simply destroys the hopes of those who are not happy.
I don’t think I can make it any clearer than that.
You really are a sad, dumb bastard.[/quote]
At least you’re consistent, no facts but plenty of name calling. LOL, but name calling does not substitute for a good argument when you get a little older you might realize this, maybe not, in your case I don’t think it’s as much youth and inexperience as it is the politically correct nonsense, you’ve accepted as truth, that you’ve been fed for the last 20 years.
Where did I say I wanted to treat people like “shit”? Oh that’s right, I didn’t it’s more of your strawman argument. Ha ha…
No one said that you “tell them that they’re not happy”.
You called me “dumb” but it’s you that missed this line that I wrote above:
I don’t think it’s up to you or I to determine who is happy.
DUH!
The more you post the further damage you do to your side, so please keep posting.
When you say that they CANNOT change you are indeed perpetuating a lie which denies help to some who want it. And if you cannot see this then I’m actually starting to feel sorry for you. You brainwashed little man.
I won’t ask you to come back with any fact this time around, it seems that you’re incapable.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m sorry that your brother is ill.
Being 6’7", 290, I enjoy insulting the ‘prancers’. If you or your brother are offended by what I say, that’s a whole load of tough shit.
I don’t like gays, especially the flaunters. Go gobble sausage in a back alley somewhere.
[/quote]
I’m not offended at all. It’s really pointless to get offended by stupid people. I know you’re just trying to fit in and be a “manly man”, man.
By the way, nice post modernlifeiswar!!
Very true, straight men need to focus on themselves and being good fathers for their children, before preaching “morals” to gay people. What kind of a twisted world are we living in?
Considering most of the homosexuality discrimination is driven by religion, why is it then OK to post pictures of bikini models and then say “she’s a hard on machine”, if you aren’t attracted to it, put a bullet in your head. What would Jesus do? Would Jesus have said that?
Men who run around making babies then leave really need to take responsibility. Step up and be a father for your child you brought into this world. But hey, they aren’t as “bad” as homosexuals because they’re doing it with a woman, right? You want to talk about “morals”, this topic is a serious problem.
I can’t fathom leaving my baby girl without a dad. It’s too bad there are so many messed up straight men out there. But hey, lets focus on gay men and gay sex, not the huge problem of men not being fathers for their children. Now thats a “moral” issue. Kids need parents.
sorry to jump in late. Is this thread worth going back and reviewing?
Choice? all sex acts are choice. No one is required to have sex. The preference? I have to speculate genetic. Who would knowingly choose a lifestyle that opens them up to the judgment from a huge portion of the populace?
It isn’t the lifestyle that gets the reaction, it is the act of gay sex. That is such a small part of the lifestyle.
I invite gay guys to my parties. Why? They gab better with women. They dance with the women. It keeps the hillbillies away. They help clean up. So then what happens when the drinks flow? who is there to scoop up the naughty bits when the inhibitions fall and the arousal rises?
Also, I don’t agree with the content of most of your sources and the conclusions you come to, but that’s another argument.
ZEB wrote:
No actually that IS the argument. Nice job of sidestepping it and attacking about one third of the sources which I posted.[/quote]
Sorry that I didn’t get all of them. We’ve had this discussion and those unreferenced listings before, so I may have overlooked some of them. I’m pretty sure I can trace the rest if needed.
And let’s stick a moment with your sidestepping: did you actually read the sources, or only the digests you quote? If you require others to do the full reading, you should either have done it yourself - or even better enable others to do so - to wield a credible argument.
No need to get your panties in a twist. You wanted people to discuss the sources - I did. In a scientific setting you’d have to defend yourself for plagiarism (for the non-referencing) and non-disclosure of a bias by now (for omitting the strong your listings’ religious affiliation); alas, as this is an Internet forum, I guess this will not happen. But I have seen you use big words like ‘lie’ in this thread - I’d rethink that approach, as your methodology has just been proven as not the most credible either.
And what would be the point of trying to actually argue these sources - you dismiss any professional bodies’ statements when they don’t follow your chosen credo (that means pretty much all of them) on homosexuality, as biased. This is especially valid for the APA, which you accuse of being taken over by the ‘homosexual agenda’. This and the religious motivated sources you copy/paste from allows you to create this alternative reality in which you see the following hypotheses as validated:
a.) That homosexuality as a sexual orientation is a ‘lifestyle choice’ (hell, it might even be a ‘sin’, according to some of your sources)
b.) That by applying ‘therapeutic’ measures it has been proven to be reversible which confirms hypothesis a.)
c.) That there is are measurable causality between the ‘choice’ of living a homosexual life and a number of negative effects on MSM as well as society as a whole; and that application of hypothesis b.), namely ‘therapy’ would lead to betterment for MSM as well as society
d.) That these hypotheses are actively being silenced by what is referred to as the ‘homosexual agenda’ which is perceived to be dominating pretty much all professional bodies using the big word ‘homophobia’; this hypothesis is central in the face of adversity as it can be used to negate any attempt to actually argue scientifically or put the studies you claim to have read under peer-review
[quote]Now what about the other 65% or so of the sources?
And what about 100% of the actual facts?[/quote]
Now that’s a bit of my problem you see - I’d like to actually work with your sources, but so far I’m not even convinced you read more than a digest provided by your activist sites either. Now I’m happy to admit that many of the sources I quote (and always clearly reference) are often digests as well (long live the Internet). But let’s play this game for a minute and discuss the ‘facts’: You will find that one of your most quoted sources, the CDC does not seem to agree with any of your hypotheses.
Let’s have a look:
a.) The CDC really doesn’t take much of a stand on the causes of sexual orientation - and that’s ok, because it leaves this to the experts - for example the APA. http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/men.htm
Conclusion: CDC accepts as ‘fact’ the (real) expert of opinion of the relevant mental health body on matters of sexual orientation. Interestingly, I don’t find the Associations of Christian Medicine and Dentistry here.
c.) This is a central point. While CDC recognises correlation between risky sexual behaviour and infectious diseases it does nowhere argue causation. In its materials for MSM it even goes further to point out that engaging with the gay community is an appropriate measure to decrease infections. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm http://www.effectiveinterventions.org/go/interventions/mpowerment Conclusion: CDC understands the positive value of an organised MSM scene and the problems of prohibitive attitudes within society. It therefore works with integration - not trying to reverse homosexuality.
d.) CDC itself uses the term ‘homophobia’ and names it as an aggravating factor in the spread of infectious diseases, especially AIDS, and specifically points out to cultural influences which makes fighting these diseases harder. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm Conclusion: CDC recognises that gay averse or ‘repugnant’ (as someone once wrote so poetically on these forums) behaviours actually have a detrimental effect on society as a whole. And - to my personal delight, they vindicate the term ‘homophobic’ as appropriate. I shall use it with impunity, when appropriate - aslong as the CDC does.
So - the moment you (or the sources you) argue (with) that CDC data indicates ‘the ghey’ as harmful to society, that there is a ‘cure’, and that ‘homophobia’ is an inappropriate term, you weaken your own argument, as it does no such thing. In order to come to this conclusion you should really read your own sources (I remember this specific page above from the ‘Brokeback’ thread). They are all here and fully referenced.
Makkun
PS: Oh - and for the argument that if people wish to be therapied for something that they don’t need to be therapied for (like homosexuality): no problem, people have always liked quackery, and there will always be a market for it. No one keeps therapy-willing people from trying anything. But we don’t rewrite the DSM for that, and it’s the scientific community’s job to warn when they see ethical or health related problems with it. And they name reparative therapy what it is - quackery.
