Actually, the major medical and mental health organizations unanimously agree that reparative therapy doesn’t work and is potentially damaging. People going through reparative therapy are at double the risk of suicidal thoughts, drug/alcohol abuse, anxiety, and depression after completing the therapy.
But I’ve pointed this out before, and I know it won’t make any difference to people who are convinced otherwise.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Schlenkatank who is barely 19 wrote:
When I was 7 years old I went to summer camp for the first time. At this camp i hiked, looked at wildlife, and experienced the outdoors in a lot of new ways. One day I found a wildly colored caterpillar covered in spines marching on top of a leaf. “Poison” I said, and smashed it under a rock. I thought I had done something good, because the caterpillar wasn’t natural or good in my eye. But my counselor told me that what I did was wrong, because even Caterpillars exist for a reason.
Sniff…sniff…what a wonderful little story…Then you ruined it.
Homosexuality is not a crime.
Actually it was a crime until sometime in the 1970’s about the time we gave up most of our morality. But…I don’t think it should be a crime as long as they stay away from children.
Homosexuality is natural…
Tell me what’s natural about one man climbing on the back of another man and inserting his penis in the mans asshole?
No…it’s quite unnatural.
You can’t tell a gay person to stop being gay, or smash them under a rock, so let them march along in there own life and just live yours.
I think I’m going to cry…that was beautiful man…(yawn)…anyway…For those who want to get help they can search out reparative therapy it’s got about a 33% chance of working. For those who are happy being homosexual I have no problem with that, but stop trying to play the marriage card because there is far too much promiscuity for such a thing.
Insightful as always, Troll28.
Hey…Wittle dusty is back at his parents computer…isn’t that cute. Now remember to put that special cushion back after get down from your fathers chair…you’re getting to be a really big boy, I bet someday soon you won’t need that cushion…run along now the adults are talking…go on…
Oh there may be adults talking here, but you certainly aren’t one of them.
You’re a little punk, who thinks he actually has something significant to contribute. Over the next 10 years during the maturing process your opinion will change 5 or 6 times…now run along turd boy you have nothing to say that hasn’t already been stated by other immature idiots.
If you didn’t constantly post inflammatory nonsense (hence your nickname) I wouldn’t call you on it.
Seriously, how many times are you going to post about the miracles of “reparative therapy” for gays? It doesn’t work, yet you will drag it out as valid argument to “cure” homosexuality.
And if I was to guess your age based on your sophomoric outbursts and personal attacks, I would say you were no more than 21 years old.
Furthermore, I have experienced more in the last two years than you will in your entire lifetime.
Run along Troll28, back to that cozy rock of yours.
Dusty,
If I recall correctly you and Mick pulled this nonsense on another thread. In this case I think it was you who began the rock throwing, but either way it seems to me that you both need stop it, don’t you think?
[/quote]
C’mon Zeb, do you actually read Troll28’s posts? The few facts he does present are dilluded by his childish behavior. It’s clear he can’t debate with anyone that disagree with him. He deserves every “rock” that is thrown at him. Of course, I should no better than to feed the troll.
Just FYI, I’m certainly not the only person here who recognizes him as a troll.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
C’mon Zeb, do you actually read Troll28’s posts? The few facts he does present are dilluded by his childish behavior. It’s clear he can’t debate with anyone that disagree with him. He deserves every “rock” that is thrown at him. Of course, I should no better than to feed the troll.
Just FYI, I’m certainly not the only person here who recognizes him as a troll.[/quote]
True, but I think you are wrong about his age.
It takes decades of epic fail to become that bitter.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
orion wrote:
And yet you cant stop fantasizing about it, because it is all so strangely attractive and yet repulsive.
Dont worry, a lot of homophobes share your feelings.
I said no such thing. Perhaps you find it attractive. I’m merely repulsed by it - as are most men and women for that matter. And if being a homophobe means I don’t desire to be confronted with it, and that I don’t support their “rights” as they desire them, well then color me a card carrying flag waving homophobe. Can me and my ilk have a parade? I mean we can’t just cruise around looking for some to beat up any more - that’s against the law. Can we at least have a parade?
[/quote]
I’ll simplify for them bodyguard. Let’s say I was going to pick a big, green snot and eat it. Most people would find that repulsive. That’s how I feel about gay sex. I’m not against a private lifestyle choice, but when there is a refusal to assume responsibility for a habit driven disease, I have a problem.
[quote]Jeffe wrote:
clip11 wrote:
kodiak82 wrote:
forlife wrote:
If it were primarily a gay disease, how do you explain that most new cases of HIV are among straight black women in Africa?
Come on, use some common sense. People that are sexually irresponsible put themselves at risk of getting HIV and other STDs. If you’re in a monagmous relationship, your risk of getting an STD is zero, regardless of whether or not the person is the same gender as you.
rape and the belief in some African countries. that if you have sex with a virgin, that doing so will cure you. I’m sure many of these married men are secretly gay. many African cultures have stigmas attached to being homosexuals. many get married to women and secretly still have sex with men.
Thats especially true among black women here in the U.S.! Alot of black men secretly have sex with other men, catch HIV and then pass it on to their wives and girlfriends. Outside of those down low black men, virtually no one else carries the virus.
And ive been called a troll 10 times, but no one still explained the Magic Johnson thing to me. The more i get called a troll the more right I think I am!
Geez, I really wanted to stay out of this one…but how fucking dumb can you be?
Maybe the reason that Magic Johnson is the only one of those sports stars you’ve heard of contracting HIV is because it happened when the country was acutely aware of the disease and he made for an excellent spokesperson for HIV awareness when it was needed most.
On top of that, the likelihood of an extremely famous athlete involved in contact sports where blood could be exchanged putting themselves in a position to lose their career and livelihood when drug tests are performed bi-monthly would be an outrageously costly mistake, so wrapping it up would be an easy solution for them.
To say that the gay community is extremely promiscuous is interesting too. Where’s your proof? Anecdotal evidence, or personal experience? It has to be one of the two. No none-biased study has shown homosexuals to be more “sexual” then heterosexuals.
It has been documented over and over again that the reason for the HIV epidemic in Africa is primarily from the rape of young girls by infected men, who then have infected babies. It’s not because a disproportionate number of tribal African men are gay. How exactly does that factor in?
The fact is that it is an easily erasable virus. People with it need to stop having any kind of intimate contact with people who don’t have it. [/quote]
There have been many peer reviewed studies showing a much higher rate of sexual contacts in the gay community.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Dusty your problem is that as a little insignificant turd you have no idea what works and what doesn’t. Reparative therapy has in fact worked for about one third of those who have tried it.
[/quote]
It doesn’t and far too often the therapy is faith based, which automatically disqualifies it as being anything near scientific.
Also, for it to work, homosexuality would have to be recognized as a choice one makes, which it isn’t. Did you wake up this morning making the decision to desire small woodland creatures? Of course not, it just feels comfortable to you. Likewise, I didn’t wake up today asking myself if I desire women, I just do.
Actually, since I minored in psychology, it was discussed and isn’t taken too seriously within the field. And it has nothing to do with political correctness. Quit using that as argument to dismiss what you disagree with.
Clearly, you are in no condition to comprehend what I do or do not know, oh wise one.
[quote]orion wrote:
True, but I think you are wrong about his age.
It takes decades of epic fail to become that bitter.
[/quote]
This is true. Good point.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
It’s equally clear that HIV/AIDS is readily transmitted among heterosexual partners who engage in unprotected vaginal sex.
Proof? Give at least some of your own anecdotal evidence. I have friends who’ve slept with hundreds of women unprotected. Whenever they’ve walked into the clinic to get tested for HIV, they’re told they don’t have anything to worry about unless they’ve slept with other men. Their tests have all come back negative.
If “readily transmitted” means “prostitutes readily transmit,” I might agree, but the fact is that we’d have seen heterosexuals contracting this disease at a significant rate in this country if your assertion is true.
I remember public health authorities trying to scare us with this back in the 90s when I was in sex ed in junior high. 20 years later, where’s the proof? It’s all in the heads of the “equal outcome” libs.
There’s plenty of proof (and there is certainly a non-neglible amount of heterosexuals in this country who contrac HIV each year) Statistics bear this out. Not hard to find. I’m not going to dig anything up. All reasonably intelligent people realize the importance of safe sex. I thought you were one of them but maybe not. Your friends are lucky.
JS,
I think the real point is that the numbers demonstrate that HIV is far more prevalent in the gay community. Since the gay population comprises only perhaps 1%-3% of the population yet just under 70% of all reported HIV cases, we can clearly see that AIDS is in fact a gay disease. There is only a relatively small portion of the straight population effected. Those that are effected however are from gay men who have also had sex with straight women.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone disptues that HIV/AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community. That’s a fact. I disagree with your latter statement, and I think any doctor or anyone who’s done the research would as well. AIDS may have started among gays, and it may have been brought to heterosexuals by gay or bisexual men. But at this point, there is transmission among heterosexuals (particularly those who engage in unprotected sex) that have never had any gay experiences. What basis at all do you have to say otherwise? I challenge you to find a single scientific study or statment that says that all heterosexuals who contract HIV/AIDS got it from a gay or bisexual man who also has sex with women. A religious website of non-doctors does not count.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
clip11 wrote:
HIV aside, how does anyone explain outbreaks of diseases that affect almost exclusively homosexuals, almost unknown to heterosexuals such as: gay bowel syndrome, hepatitis A, scarlet fever?
It is pretty obvious. Anal sex and the fecal-oral route is not particularly healthy and makes it easier to contract a whole host of diseases. But scarlet fever does not occur almost exclusively in homosexuals by any means. Scarlet fever occus mostly in children aged 2-10 years.
So you have to admit that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle. Also, did you know the life expectancy of a homosexual man is about 20-25 years less than a heterosexual? Look at it this way, when was the last time you saw an old gay man?
[/quote]
I have never lead the charge saying that the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ is healthy (though I don’t believe that it will lead to the degeneration of society and do believe that things like civil unions can only promote monogamy and help eliminate some of the risk factors inherent in many homosexual lifestyles). The point is that AIDS is NOT a gay disease. It is only more common among gays and more readily transmitted by anal than vaginal sex.
It is stupid, ignorant people with an anti-gay agenda that push the false position that heterosexuals need not worry about contracting HIV/AIDS. That is wrong and does a disservice to young people (or anyone who thinks they are immune and need not concern themselves with practicing safe sex)
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Overall is different than individual You never take individual stats and apply them to a sample size of you.[/quote]
My case, and that of most of my friends, proves that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about homosexuality. We are as healthy, or more healthy, than most heterosexual couples.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
C’mon Zeb, do you actually read Troll28’s posts? The few facts he does present are dilluded by his childish behavior. It’s clear he can’t debate with anyone that disagree with him. He deserves every “rock” that is thrown at him. Of course, I should no better than to feed the troll.
Just FYI, I’m certainly not the only person here who recognizes him as a troll.[/quote]
Dustin, what good are are you doing by seeking him out and calling him names? Obviously he will retaliate and then we have yet another thread spiralling downward. How does any of that promote good discussion?
If you have well thought out points and want to pursue them then engage someone who is willing (in your eyes) to give you the proper discourse.
Make any sense?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Dustin, what good are are you doing by seeking him out and calling him names? Obviously he will retaliate and then we have yet another thread spiralling downward. How does any of that promote good discussion?
[/quote]
These “gay threads” are a waste of internet space. They usually end up in the toilet after a few posts. Don’t worry about it.
By the way, are you still the pull-up king?
So if say 3% of a certain sexual demographic contracts 50-75% of a certain disease’s new infections. Does that make it “theirs”?
I say, Yes. Gays will say, NO. Is there even a point in arguing with people in Denial? Yes anyone can be infected but being gay certainly almost guarantees it eventually.
It’s like motorcycle riders arguing the bikes are not dangerous and point out that cars cause fatalities too. While true, riding a motorcycle is significantly more potentially fatal.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Clip, I’m interested in your answer to my question.
I’m a gay man in a committed, long term monogamous relationship. What about me being gay places me at any risk whatsoever of contracting HIV?[/quote]
your partner straying for a good anal experience, while you’re home cooking dinner and eventually are the last to know.
…and taking a nut in your butt is not a good health choice - whether it’s from your long term monogamous partner or from some anonymous leather clad ram-rodder you met in the bathroom at the club.
[quote]forlife wrote:
15 years ago, more people were in the closet than today. It’s not accurate to take self-reported statistics as an indication of the true population of gays, especially when there are significant cultural/religious pressures not to be honest about your sexuality.
Even if you go with 1.5% though, that means 102 million people are gay.
Honestly, I think the “problem” is with males in general. It’s not that surprising if you think about it. Men have a higher sex drive, and are more willing to take sexual risks than women. People rarely consider lesbians when talking about sexual promiscuity or risky behaviors. The statistics are always limited to gay men.
It’s pretty simple. If you are sexually promiscuous, you are more likely to give/receive STDs. You can be gay or straight without being sexually promiscuous.
The problem is not with sexual orientation, but with sexual promiscuity.[/quote]
And that promiscuity is arc welded to the gay community. Its part of the psychological package that makes one gay. Man are you ever in denial.
It’s like gays spend their whole life looking for love from a man. The love they never got from the most important man in their lives.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
forlife wrote:
15 years ago, more people were in the closet than today. It’s not accurate to take self-reported statistics as an indication of the true population of gays, especially when there are significant cultural/religious pressures not to be honest about your sexuality.
Even if you go with 1.5% though, that means 102 million people are gay.
Honestly, I think the “problem” is with males in general. It’s not that surprising if you think about it. Men have a higher sex drive, and are more willing to take sexual risks than women. People rarely consider lesbians when talking about sexual promiscuity or risky behaviors. The statistics are always limited to gay men.
It’s pretty simple. If you are sexually promiscuous, you are more likely to give/receive STDs. You can be gay or straight without being sexually promiscuous.
The problem is not with sexual orientation, but with sexual promiscuity.
And that promiscuity is arc welded to the gay community. Its part of the psychological package that makes one gay. Man are you ever in denial.
It’s like gays spend their whole life looking for love from a man. The love they never got from the most important man in their lives. [/quote]
Never go full retard.
ill always be on the rim.