Zeb, give it up. Everyone on this forum knows that you’ve got nothing, no matter how many chants of “I GOT FACTS I GOT FACTS YAY!” you keep up.
The actual facts of the matter havent changed: You’re still a misguided bigot, gays still have no reason to change their sexuality, and being ambiguous about your bigotry then hiding behind the fact that you wont just come out and say it is sad and annoying.
I’m done with you. Goodbye.
[quote]ModernLifeIsWar wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
What does my being a teacher have to do with any of this? Because I’m a teacher, I have to be accepting of perverts and pedophiles, people who think putting their cock into some other pervert’s anus, is fine and dandy? Okay, being a teacher, I’m intolerant…intolerant of lazy assholes who want an ‘A’ as a gift…intolerant of those who want to live abusing sex either with kids or each other…intolerant of those who want to live their ‘lifestyle’ and spread the infection throughout our communities.
In modern Doublespeak, that makes me a bigot. In real language, it makes me a man. All true men despise these unnatural perversions and are intolerant of them.
And all real men would love to ‘hit’ Vida!!
[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
I know that somehow, you want to be accepting of your brother. That’s the moral chant of our day…be accepting of anyone and anything.
If your brother was being ‘friendly’ with a 12 year old boy, would you be accepting? You’re willing to accept his lifestyle. Why not that? I’m sure someday the libs will try to get us all accepting pedophilia, like how its now PC to accept homosexual perverts.
What if your brother was hetero and had 10 kids with 10 different women. Would you happily smile and accept his ‘lifestyle choices’.
You’ve been brainwashed by the PC Police/Big Brother. Time to question your premises.
Before you read ahead, note that I have done extensive research from a non-bias stand point on sexual orientation. I have read numorous amounts of books and articles on this subject, been to therapy, and I also have a degree in phsycology. Not to mention, I am a gay man, thus giving me a whole lot of credebility when it comes to this topic.
I am not trying to “win” this argument like some people on here who get off on debating. I am just stating “FACTS”. You will read ahead if you truly have an interest in this subject and care about the well-being of others.
What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association’s Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology’s opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client’s right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Are gay men more likely to molest children?
No. Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?
Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called “coming out”, has been found to be strongly related to psychological adjustment�??the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the better one’s mental health and the higher one’s self-esteem.
Why Is the “Coming Out” Process Difficult for Some Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People?
For some gay and bisexual people the coming out process is difficult, for others it is not. Often lesbian, gay and bisexual people feel afraid, different, and alone when they first realize that their sexual orientation is different from the community norm. This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation as a child or adolescent, which is not uncommon. And, depending on their families and where they live, they may have to struggle against prejudice and misinformation about homosexuality. Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bias and stereotypes. They may also fear being rejected by family, friends,co-workers, and religious institutions. Some gay people have to worry about losing their jobs or being harassed at school if their sexual orientation became well known. Unfortunately, gay, lesbian and bisexual people are at a higher risk for physical assault and violence than are heterosexuals. Studies done in California in the mid 1990s showed that nearly one-fifth of all lesbians who took part in the study and more than one-fourth of all gay men who participated had been the victim of a hate crime based on their sexual orientation. In another California study of approximately 500 young adults, half of all the young men participating in the study admitted to some form of anti-gay aggression from name-calling to physical violence.
What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination the Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Experience?
Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well�??often as a friend or co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are prejudices that are not grounded in actual experiences but are based on stereotypes and prejudice.
Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination is very important, just as it is for other minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual orientation as a “hate crime” and 10 U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Why is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?
Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality�??whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity�??information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.
Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
No. This is a commonly held myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation. What’s important to remember about HIV/AIDS is it is a preventable disease through the use of safe sex practices and by not using drugs.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
[quote]ModernLifeIsWar wrote:
(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).[/quote]
Wow, a whole spectrum of gay individuals out there but anyone opposed to homosexuality fits into one of three neat little categories! You’re defending a group of people grasping for a genetic explanation to write off their behavior and you think ‘education of risk’ is a useful tool or a point to criticize? Clearly, you are one of the more optimistic and open-minded individuals amongst us mortals.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h45h302766248571/
This whole thread/argument demonstrates an archaic view and a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying biology. No one would say a car handles poorly or accelerates well strictly because of the way the blueprints were drawn. But for some reason, some groups and individuals are really interested in the idea that homosexuality be genetically determined.
Much of the “homosexual movement” seeks to undermine the ideals of democracy, co-opt some of underlying tenets of civil rights, and distort and fabricate “facts” to justify themselves (much the way their ‘bible thumping’ opposition does). That is why I oppose much of what “homosexuals” stand for. Add an option D to your list.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How do they become aroused if they are only attracted to someone of the same sex?[/quote]
Who says it’s impossible for someone to be having sex with someone they aren’t attracted to?
[quote]What you are saying is because all of the social pressures a man who calls himself a “homosexual” is able to achieve an erection with a woman.
Ha ha…that’s actually laughable.
A man is either aroused by that particular gender or not. What a very foolish argument that you’re attempting.[/quote]
Really? Find me evidence where humans cannot be aroused in presence of the same sex.
[quote]The following information has nothing to do with religious folks:
"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.[/quote]
Really? So Nicolosi wasn’t a prominent speaker with Focus for The Family? And I guess NARTH has nothing to do with them, Nicolosi was just one of a few bad apples.
[quote]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.”[/quote]
In your ‘landmark’ study(that was not peer-reviewed and rejected by other psychiatrists for non-random subject selection and ‘no scientific evidence’) and the rest of them, all they did was ASKED. That’s some great scientific studies there, ZEB. “Hey, so are you still a homo, Tim? -Um, no Dr.Fubbert. Changed my ways for good. No more man-ass for me.” Science truly at it’s best.
LOL…Wow, that’s the funiest thing I read this new year(by the way, Happy New Year). Before this I wanted to deport CNN reporters to Iraq as landmine fodder. But now I see great SNL-style potential.
[quote]When you get done digesting these two there are roughly 50 more I will post.
Oh the heck with it I’ll post them now:
[…]
Ok, well here we go:
Please read these studies and point out to me why you think that the authors are indeed lying. I am very serious about this and will not let this point go by the wayside.
Because if the authors are lying I will stop quoting them.
If you cannot do this then you are the one misrepresenting the facts. And you are the one LYING.
[/quote]
Here we go…
First off. I don’t believe you’re serious because these things are flagrantly obvious. Second, these are SURVEYS. They just ask people. I didn’t check all of them completely but I’m guessing that none of them are peer-reviewed or accepted by scientists as holding any credible evidence. The significant desire for many gays to become straight or at least hide their sexual identity is unquestionable.
And yes, it is possible for gay men to have sex with women(again, I don’t believe you are serious). Mark Foley, McGreevey and Ted Haggard are just the most recent out of the myriads of closeted homosexuality. They are also good because they illustrated just how far into hypocrisy-land this could go. Married men. For years, with children, fundamental Christians.
Another thing is NRATH and all related. These guys are known to be associated with Focus On The Family, an evangelical group.
It’s easy to paste a ton of text, ZEB. But find me a peer-reviewed article in there. One that wasn’t rebutted for ‘non-random selection of participants’, like Spitzer?
But when you have a phenomenon that’s been happening for thousands of years, is observable in animals and crosses all cultural and national lines then you need more than surveys of people who want to show that they’re not gay by people who want to show that gays can be “cured”.
My argument against your articles is that they are not peer-reviewed, have non-random subjects, are connected to religious individuals and groups, not accepted by scientific community and provide no scientific evidence. If I’m wrong then you are welcome to rebuke.
How do you know they weren’t years of same sex as well?
So you ignored all the facts I’ve presented.
I didn’t hear any ‘born that way’ arguments, as I’ve said before. I came up with arguments while posting in this thread. I have no idea whether they’re born or made or 50/50 or some are and some aren’t. But judging by the facts that ARE available, I’m more inclined to think that there’s some biological component.
[quote]Happens in the animal world all the time,
You’re posting the same lies over and over again. It was already shown to you that some animals are quite capable of having sex with either gender. They’re not “homosexual” they’re bisexual.[/quote]
That’s not true. Many animals, like the male big horn sheep and the male penguin bond for life in homosexual pairs. Also, genetic markers, leading to homosexual behavior in flies have already been identified. Als0(http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300004495)researchers recently found the sexual center of gay men’s brains lit up when they sniffed a pheromone-like chemical from men’s sweat, but didn’t respond to a chemical from women.
There are more, of course. But why would you care? If you read a bunch of rejected surveys and keep repeating that ‘thousands can change’ then what chance do I have with some dusty ol’ common sense?
[quote]One or more of the following four things have occurred to those who call themselves “homosexual”:
-A domineering mother
-A distant father (mother) figure
-Was sexually molested
-Felt ostracized early as a youth, for whatever reason.[/quote]
Lie. We know that none of these consistently leads to homosexuality and that many gays had none of them.
[quote]we know it can’t be changed,
WRONG!
It can and is changed all the time. People go from being hetero to homo and from homosexual to heterosexual. And since you cannot respond intelligently to the many statistics that I posted I’ll have to assume that they are in fact correct.[/quote]
Liar. There’s no statistic for what goes on inside a persons head. And you dishonestly posted unscientific articles just to pretend that you KNOW, when obviously you don’t know.
Yes, indeed, it WAS. Now it’s NOT. Get over it. I don’t need your black and white visions of ‘liberals and conservatives’ and who took over. Just fight the damn points for a change.
Can you produce me a study that proves that it’s a mental disorder? No, all you have is surveys. And if that wasn’t bad enough it’s mostly religious doctors choosing specific(non-random, remember) subjects and just ASKING. You’re the one with a heavily biased agenda here.
[quote]But I don’t give a rat’s ass either way.
Sure you do or you wouldn’t be bothering to try to respond to me regularly.[/quote]
I care about equal rights, not whether they’re born or made.
[quote]ZEB: But, what do you say to the many who have changed and are now happily married?
ME: How do you know if they are happily married or when gays enjoy sex with women? Do you put on your invisible cloak and follow them for months? Can you read their thoughts?
ZEB: No,…[/quote]
No? Well then stop claiming it.
[quote]but apparently you and your ilk think that you can. There have been many surveys and reliable studies performed. These folks have been followed up with questionnaires and have repeatedly stated that they are happily married.
They’ve gone from homosexual to heterosexual-PERIOD.[/quote]
Keep your periods to yourself. You don’t know and can’t know. How loud you scream makes no difference.
Liar. You first have to prove that they have changed. I gave you plenty of answers.
I don’t need any luck because I never made any claims. I said, I don’t know and don’t really care. But you imagined that you do know. So you are the one who’s supposed to be proving.
But it turned out you don’t know and can only shout, accuse me of agenda and demand proof, all while presenting some flagrantly unscientific questionnaires made by religious zealots as ‘landmark studies’. Shame on you.
More condescending patronizing eh…sorry Zeb, but ‘respect and attention’ is something you loose with quotes like that.
[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB,
No need to get your panties in a twist. You wanted people to discuss the sources - I did.[/quote]
No, I wanted people to discuss the CONTENT. All you did was attack a few of the sources. Your argument that the sources are no good is false. First of all as I said you’ve only looked at about one third of the sources. And secondly, because those sources are from people whom you don’t like doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.
I assume you don’t like George Bush, but if he said that today is Monday in the continental US it doesn’t mean it’s not Monday simply because you don’t like who said it. There are some sources which have been quoted in this argument from the left (not in this thread) which I don’t like but have to admit that they’re factually correct.
One more thing:
I don’t wear panties, that must be someone on your side you’re thinking of. 
[quote] 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.
[/quote]
You know you have not changed one bit from a few years ago when we did this. You like to get caught up in who did what instead of is it the truth.
I guess that’s the way most liberals dodge the truth.
This is a message board that we’re writing on is it not? If you’d like me to do a doctoral thesis on the topic I probably could. But then guys like you and Cap (okay just Cap) would do the “homophobe” and name calling dance of the seven liberals anyway. So really what’s your point? I don’t think it’s about sources because there are many, many credible sources who claim that “homosexuality” is NOT genetic. And there are many more sources which also have good evidence that people who go through therapy do in fact change. But none of that really matters to you or your liberal pals. What matters is that people not rock the politically correct boat. The facts be dammed full speed ahead. Nothing has changed, ho hum.
[quote] This is especially valid for the APA, which you accuse of being taken over by the ‘homosexual agenda’.
[/quote]
READ THIS and tell me what the prominent doctors got out of stating it, if it were not true. They are going against the tide and not making any friends in the world of the politically correct.
"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.
What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)
In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder."
(These tactics sound familiar)
In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”
Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.
Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”
Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.
Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.
The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual Deviations.” It was the first deviation listed.
After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group."
(Gay politics won this one-Not science)
According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”
Dr. Socarides Speaks Out
Dr. Satinover shows how APA’s policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.
Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years?”
Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.
“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”
[quote]
Now what about the other 65% or so of the sources?
And what about 100% of the actual facts?
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[/quote]
You’re going to have to keep the arguments “straight”. I never once quoted the CDC in an attempt to prove that homosexuals could change.
You got confused. That’s easy to do on this topic as it takes quite a few twists and turns.
I quoted the CDC site exclusively to point out the dangers of the lifestyle, depression, anxiety, suicide rate, the many STD’s which are contracted etc.
I hope that you’re not going to say that the CDC is a right wing site. You’re not going to say that are you? No, you won’t, you’re more reasonable than that. It’s Cap’s job to play the raving lunatic liberal on this thread. I’ll wait for him to say that the CDC is a right wing religious organization. He won’t disappoint me either, hasn’t yet.
And that’s the very attitude which prevents those who are NOT happy with a same sex attraction from trying to seek therapy. The left is threatened by this as they have perpetuated the big “born that way” LIE.
Now why don’t you give me some proof that homosexuals are “born that way” You’ve probably said it enough times, so back it up right here on T-Nation, I’d love to read it. There is no more “quackery” than that found on the left. They want the truth to be what is politically correct and it just isn’t so.
One more thing, it it’s not nature then it has to be nurture. And if it’s nurture then that’s probably the reason why a good many who used to call themselves “homosexual” have changed.
Think about that makkun, you’re a smart guy.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zeb, give it up. Everyone on this forum knows that you’ve got nothing, no matter how many chants of "I GOT FACTS I GOT FACTS YAY![/quote]
Good job, one more post and still no refutation of those facts. You should get the politically correct left winger of the year award.
Plenty of bluster and zero credibility.
Nice.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The actual facts of the matter havent changed: You’re still a misguided bigot, gays still have no reason to change their sexuality, and being ambiguous about your bigotry then hiding behind the fact that you wont just come out and say it is sad and annoying.
I’m done with you. Goodbye.[/quote]
I’ve noticed a trend to your posts:
Name calling. This time it’s “bigot” next time it might be “homophobe”. And why is this? Because I’m willing to say that those who want to change should seek therapy because the facts say that therapy can work for many.
You love to use the “strawman” argument. You accuse me of hating Homosexuals. While I never said or even implied such a thing. How is leaving the door open to therapy hateful? In fact, closing it is hateful. My point is to leave the door open so that those who want to change have that opportunity. Oh yea, I’ve said that a couple of hundred times huh? But since you can’t argue with that you resort to the “strawman”.
You leave out anything even close to factual statements. In all of your many pointless, name calling rants you’ve never once even tried to debate the facts that I’ve posted. In your little world facts don’t exist. the politically correct lie of “born that way” must be adhered to. And any and all who disagree are just hateful, new information be dammed.
In all your nutty blather you refuse to address the main point that if there is no proof that those with a SSA are not born that way then it must be nurture instead of nature. And if it is nurture then people can change with therapy.
In short, I’m glad you’re “done with me” because in a sense it’s like debating with a child. I go into detailed explanations and the child sits there with his fingers in his ears and says “nu uh”. If you ever decide to “start with me” again I suggest that you bring more than insults and outrage to this debate because what you’ve brought to this point impresses no one and only harms your side.
Take care,
Zeb
Never let the left win by mischaracterization. It is their only weapon against the truth!
Excellent post, Majin.
applause
[quote]ZEB wrote:
3. You leave out anything even close to factual statements. In all of your many pointless, name calling rants you’ve never once even tried to debate the facts that I’ve posted. In your little world facts don’t exist. the politically correct lie of “born that way” must be adhered to. And any and all who disagree are just hateful, new information be dammed.
[/quote]
…Things within the scope of nurture can always change with therapy? What the fuck are you on! I’m pretty sure nurture taught me that I enjoy watching football. If you found football evil, would you have me go to therapy to remove that love? Do you think that would actually work? Or do you think it would just instill a terribly false and disgusting mental block, perverting my mental status?
“Born that way” or not, GAYS HURT NOBODY. A man with a registered gun is a bigger threat to society than a normal man who happens to be homosexual.
Maybe you don’t hate homosexuals, I don’t really care. All I know is, for all of your “evidence”, you’ve presented no true rational argument for why gay people should not be allowed to be gay.
I’m sure you already no this, but statistics lie. They lie blatantly, and often. So a greater number of homosexuals than straight men are depressed. This is meaningless, as the survey size for straight men is obviously much, much, much (ect), larger than that of gay men. I’m sure stats like this could be found that suggest being a fireman or a police officer makes you more likely to be depressed, anxious, ect… does that mean we should discourage these professions?
Maybe homosexuality is totally unnatural. Maybe it is a choice. I highly doubt that, considering homosexuals themselves tell us they feel an attraction to men, but lets pretend it was because they were some how magically raised differently than their straight siblings, despite identical situations and parents. Why the fuck do you care?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
ZEB wrote:
3. You leave out anything even close to factual statements. In all of your many pointless, name calling rants you’ve never once even tried to debate the facts that I’ve posted. In your little world facts don’t exist. the politically correct lie of “born that way” must be adhered to. And any and all who disagree are just hateful, new information be dammed.
…Things within the scope of nurture can always change with therapy?[/quote]
Saying people “can” change does not mean that “all” people change, does it? And if you were paying attention to the debate thus far you would also know that the statistics clearly state that about 20% to 35% (depending on the study) are in fact changed.
All natural food and one protein drink per day. But, I know that you’re NOT “on” reading what I wrote. Liberals would rather stick to the script which is name calling and hate mongering.
I’ll say this about the current group of T-Nation liberals, you are not quite as sharp as the previous batch. Guys like Vroom would eat your lunch in an offline or online debate.
But anyway,
to the facts, and for about the 19th time: I would not be determining who gets therapy as it’s none of my business. If the person is not happy with a same sex attraction then THEY are the ones who determine if they want to go through therapy. I would presume that if they’re happy with their current lifestyle then they would not seek therapy.
What part about THEM deciding didn’t you understand the first 20 times that I wrote it?
Tell all the former homosexuals who are now married to someone of the opposite sex that therapy doesn’t work. But you and the other liberals in your infinite wisdom just know, you just absolutely know that therapy doesn’t work. You just somehow KNOW. It must be true it’s the politically correct thing to believe.
LOL
[quote]
“Born that way” or not, GAYS HURT NOBODY.[/quote]
Please show me where I said that homosexuals as a group purposely hurt people? (eye roll)
That is the wackiest thing that I’ve read on this thread, thank you.
Here’s one better, more people die from car accidents each year than from being homosexual.
LOL, okay you’re turn.
And there is a reason why you don’t see the rational argument. It’s because I did not present such an argument. The argument that I presented says the following:
IF THOSE WITH A SAME SEX ATTRACTION ARE NOT HAPPY AND WANT TO CHANGE THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TRY THERAPY BECAUSE SUCH THERAPY HAS INDEED CHANGED 20% TO 35% OF THOSE WHO HAVE TRIED IT.
Now if you want to argue with me about that particular statement then please do. But so far no one on this forum has presented any proof to the contrary, including you.
Yes I know, and the the governments own Centers for Disease Control is in the business of lying. You can’t believe anything that they’ve written. The next time you read about facts on the CDC site regarding a Flu epidemic I suggest that you disregard them. Pay no attention to any information that the government compiles regarding the mental and physical health of the nation because they’re all lies.
What you should do is continue to rationalize your politically correct thought process because that should take precedent over any and all actual facts.
Yes, do that.
[quote]
Maybe homosexuality is totally unnatural. Maybe it is a choice. [/quote]
Maybe? LOL
Why do you care that I care? Why do you post on this thread? Is it more appropriate for you to state your opinion on this topic than it is for me? Is it your job as a liberal to squash all conflicting opinions?
And if you thought you could help someone would you not try? Is it more humane to allow those who are not at all happy with their current circumstances to have an option to change them?
Do something that liberals gave up on about 20 years ago:
THINK!
[quote]ModernLifeIsWar wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Look, Dumbshit, show me ONE of your studies that does not begin with the LIE that being gay is a problem or is wrong in some way.
Good job, when the facts don’t line up in your favor start with the name calling, typical tactics of the left.
As to your assumption, it’s totally wrong. The only time it becomes “wrong” in those studies is when the person does not want to have a same sex attraction (ssa).
If someone wants help then they should be entitled to it, or does this not fit your narrow view of homosexuality?
Again: THINK!
Show me ONE study that does not attempt to “cure” gays (because, Dumbshit, if the study is attepting to “cure” gays, then the people running the study must think that being gay is bad,
It has nothing to do with it being “bad” or “wrong” as I stated several times, it has to do with the person seeking help because they want change in their life.
Fuck, Dumbshit,
LOL
I would have thought you’d be smart enough to figure out a biased study (OR FUCKING SIXTY) when incriminating language is used in the goddamn title of nearly every one.
Your assumption that all studies are biased BEFORE reading even one is just LAGUHABLE. But I’m not surprised, I’ve debated your type on this forum many times and when the facts are presented most of you either never post back or resort to name calling.
You have no case, so you claim bias, with no evidence of bias and then name call.
Hey, that’s some argument you have there. Ha ha
Again, all your dumbshit studies, Dumbshit, are based off the blatant, flagrant, ignorant WELL OF BULLSHIT that is homophobia.
Yes, that must be what it is. OR I have some very good facts which you have not read, don’t plan on reading and simply lump it all together as not being true because that’s what you want to believe, that’s what you’ve been fed during your young life.
Okay, I don’t think I have to read anymore of your nonsense, you have no point, no leg to stand on in this debate and at this point you’re not even worth my time. But, as I’ve said you are pretty typical of someone on the left who is confronted with the facts.
If you ever decide to seriously debate this issue, start by actually reading through a few of the studies that I posted, all name calling aside they are real eye openers. If someone does not want to be attracted to the same sex it has been demonstrated over and over again that they may not have to be.
When you pull your fingers out of your ears and your head out of your ass let me know.
Zeb
Fuck your studies. Who are all these so called “scientist” and “researchers” that you speak of? Do you know them? Do they somehow have tabs on every homo on this planet so they can correctly do their studies? No. Most gays are still in the “closet”, “studies” have shown. So all of your “proof” of whatever you are trying to prove, that gay people are bad, is bull shit. Even if all of you “statistics” are true, what then? What do you suggest me as a gay man that is in a relationship with a disease free man, do? I am also disease free?
[/quote]
Yeh Zeb, stop confusing us with facts. All scientists are biased and that is why we should never believe anything they say and never take any medication because it was also the result of scientific inquiry.
It’s all a damn conspiracy I tell you!
[quote]ModernLifeIsWar wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
You are correct. It is very surprising that headhunter is a teacher. Most teachers are liberal whiners who worry so much about being PC that they forget to actually teach kids how to think. It is awesome that we do have teachers like headhunter and we need more of them.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
ZEB wrote:
3. You leave out anything even close to factual statements. In all of your many pointless, name calling rants you’ve never once even tried to debate the facts that I’ve posted. In your little world facts don’t exist. the politically correct lie of “born that way” must be adhered to. And any and all who disagree are just hateful, new information be dammed.
…Things within the scope of nurture can always change with therapy?
Saying people “can” change does not mean that “all” people change, does it? And if you were paying attention to the debate thus far you would also know that the statistics clearly state that about 20% to 35% (depending on the study) are in fact changed.
What the fuck are you on!
All natural food and one protein drink per day. But, I know that you’re NOT “on” reading what I wrote. Liberals would rather stick to the script which is name calling and hate mongering.
I’m pretty sure nurture taught me that I enjoy watching football. If you found football evil, would you have me go to therapy to remove that love?
I’ll say this about the current group of T-Nation liberals, you are not quite as sharp as the previous batch. Guys like Vroom would eat your lunch in an offline or online debate.
But anyway,
to the facts, and for about the 19th time: I would not be determining who gets therapy as it’s none of my business. If the person is not happy with a same sex attraction then THEY are the ones who determine if they want to go through therapy. I would presume that if they’re happy with their current lifestyle then they would not seek therapy.
What part about THEM deciding didn’t you understand the first 20 times that I wrote it?
Do you think that would actually work?
Tell all the former homosexuals who are now married to someone of the opposite sex that therapy doesn’t work. But you and the other liberals in your infinite wisdom just know, you just absolutely know that therapy doesn’t work. You just somehow KNOW. It must be true it’s the politically correct thing to believe.
LOL
“Born that way” or not, GAYS HURT NOBODY.
Please show me where I said that homosexuals as a group purposely hurt people? (eye roll)
A man with a registered gun is a bigger threat to society than a normal man who happens to be homosexual.
That is the wackiest thing that I’ve read on this thread, thank you.
Here’s one better, more people die from car accidents each year than from being homosexual.
LOL, okay you’re turn.
Maybe you don’t hate homosexuals, I don’t really care. All I know is, for all of your “evidence”, you’ve presented no true rational argument for why gay people should not be allowed to be gay.
And there is a reason why you don’t see the rational argument. It’s because I did not present such an argument. The argument that I presented says the following:
IF THOSE WITH A SAME SEX ATTRACTION ARE NOT HAPPY AND WANT TO CHANGE THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TRY THERAPY BECAUSE SUCH THERAPY HAS INDEED CHANGED 20% TO 35% OF THOSE WHO HAVE TRIED IT.
Now if you want to argue with me about that particular statement then please do. But so far no one on this forum has presented any proof to the contrary, including you.
I’m sure you already no this, but statistics lie. They lie blatantly, and often. So a greater number of homosexuals than straight men are depressed. This is meaningless, as the survey size for straight men is obviously much, much, much (ect), larger than that of gay men.
Yes I know, and the the governments own Centers for Disease Control is in the business of lying. You can’t believe anything that they’ve written. The next time you read about facts on the CDC site regarding a Flu epidemic I suggest that you disregard them. Pay no attention to any information that the government compiles regarding the mental and physical health of the nation because they’re all lies.
What you should do is continue to rationalize your politically correct thought process because that should take precedent over any and all actual facts.
Yes, do that.
Maybe homosexuality is totally unnatural. Maybe it is a choice.
Maybe? LOL
Why the fuck do you care?
Why do you care that I care? Why do you post on this thread? Is it more appropriate for you to state your opinion on this topic than it is for me? Is it your job as a liberal to squash all conflicting opinions?
And if you thought you could help someone would you not try? Is it more humane to allow those who are not at all happy with their current circumstances to have an option to change them?
Do something that liberals gave up on about 20 years ago:
THINK!
[/quote]
Wait… I’m confused… are you in any way against Homosexuality, gay marriage, or Gay rights?
If you’re not… well then I really have no reason to argue with you. I couldn’t give a shit whether or not gay people want to go try therapy or not. I have no idea if it’s a choice or genetic. But as it doesn’t hurt anyone, I believe we need to allow it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I know that somehow, you want to be accepting of your brother. That’s the moral chant of our day…be accepting of anyone and anything.
If your brother was being ‘friendly’ with a 12 year old boy, would you be accepting? You’re willing to accept his lifestyle. Why not that? I’m sure someday the libs will try to get us all accepting pedophilia, like how its now PC to accept homosexual perverts.
What if your brother was hetero and had 10 kids with 10 different women. Would you happily smile and accept his ‘lifestyle choices’.
You’ve been brainwashed by the PC Police/Big Brother. Time to question your premises.
[/quote]
I love my 2 1/2 year old daughter and wife more than anything in the world. I HATE PEDOPHILES. I look at my little girl sometimes and just want to cry because of how amazing and precious she is to me. If someone ever did something to my daughter, I would kill them. You are not more of a man than me or my brother. My brother loves my daughter too and would kill for her.
I have read some of your other threads Headhunter, and have the same opinion/beliefs on many other topics. I used to think like you in terms of gay people as well. I never hated them, but thought they somehow affected me. Well, it happened to me, I have a gay brother, never thought it could ever happen to me but it did. My point of view changed because I’ve seen his struggles, I’ve heard his cries and know how much pain he’s been through. My brother is thankful that I’m not gay because he would never want me to go through what he’s been through growing up and now. Whatever though, sit there and tell me that he’s “sick”, he’s a pervert, he’s fucked up, he’s a piece of shit. Until you deal with it in your own family, you have no fucking idea. I’m not “brainwashed”.
Zeb likes to talk about “strawman” arguments a lot on this thread. Well I feel I get a strawman argument thrown at me because no matter what I say, I’M A TWISTED LIBERAL PERVERT BECAUSE I ACCEPT MY BROTHER. No matter how many times I say, my brother isn’t hurting anyone, my brother is a good person, my brother is a good uncle to my daughter, my brother isn’t spreading disease, you will all say: What if he was a pedophile, what if he was a murderer, what if he had 10 kids with 10 different women? THERE IS NO “IF”. NO FUCKING “IF”. He is none of those things, period. Is everyone shocked that a man who hates pedophiles and hates murderers and hates rapists, could accept a gay family member? Is it shocking? Why?
For the hunderedth time, my brother is not a pedophile. My brother is not spreading disease. My brother is doing something with another consenting adult. Can you grasp that, OR WILL YOU CONTINUE TO THINK I’M SOME LIBERAL MANIAC WHO WILL ACCEPT ANYTHING BECAUSE I ACCEPT MY BROTHER? Do you understand? He’s just a regular guy who is attracted to men, that’s it. Go ahead and say whatever the fuck you want about AIDS, STD’s, mental problems, unhappiness, whatever the fuck you want. IT DOESN’T RELATE TO ME OR MY GAY BROTHER. I KNOW YOU WON’T GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SCULLS THOUGH (brainwashed).
Comparing gay people to pedophilia is FUCKING STUPID. Kids don’t have a choice. Consenting gay adults do. They have NOTHING to do with one another. And if a gay guy is attracted to a kid, then he is a pedophile as well as a gay guy.
I am done with this fucking thread, people hear what they want. I’m not brainwashed, I love my brother and my family. AND MY BROTHER IS NOT HURTING ANYONE.
So hate gay people! As long as you aren’t hurting anyone or killing gay people to each his own.
I just wish some people could understand where I’m coming from. Unless you’ve felt and seen what I have dealing with my brother, you won’t get it. That’s fine, but I ain’t no twisted liberal pedophile accepting freak.
Good bye and take care.
Would it go over like a lead balloon if I were to say the following?
[center]This thread is gay[/center]
[quote]Chewie wrote:
Would it go over like a lead balloon if I were to say the following?
[center]This thread is gay[/center] [/quote]
…Can we get a few hundred interbutts for this guys over here?
A note to HH: Your use of the slippery slop argument is hilarious, as it is ridiculously similar to arguments used by gun-control nuts and gun nuts alike. Both being stupid, stupid arguments.
If X is the extreme of Y, implementing Y doesn’t always lead to X.
Some used to say accepting an interracial relationship was “just politically correct” and would lead to the kids of stupid acceptances you speak about. Now we know better.
Pedophiles HURT PEOPLE. Rapists HURT PEOPLE. Unfaithful husbands HURT PEOPLE.
As long as Gay people hurt NO ONE, you cannot compare these things.