New York Gay Wedding Lottery

[quote]method_man wrote:

[quote]lucasa wrote:

Sometimes, I wish my brain turned off too.[/quote]

It looks like your wish came true.

You are born into your race period. There is no way to possibly disguise it. White homosexuals do not have to disclose their sexual orientation at a job interview. Black people can not cover up their race to a racist interviewer.
[/quote]

Exactly my point, just because two things share similarities, that doesn’t make them similar. I’m always disgusted by the way sexual orientation and race are always interchanged.

[quote]method_man wrote:
Black people can not cover up their race to a racist interviewer.
[/quote]

White people can not cover up their race to a racist interviewer.

[quote]method_man wrote:

Were homosexuals uprooted from their motherland, sold into slavery and then systematically oppressed for 400 years?

[/quote]

No, but white people were. In fact whites comprised the majority of early slaves shipped to the new world. And try 800+ years of systematic oppression for my folk. My folk were still being rounded up and held indefinitely without charge in the 1980’s. Howzabout dropping the victimhood silly buggers game because your demands for reparations make you a frigging laughing stock.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

[quote]
Black folks could never be “in the closet” from white racists.[/quote]

White folk could never be ‘in the closet’ from black racists.

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]method_man wrote:

[quote]lucasa wrote:

Sometimes, I wish my brain turned off too.[/quote]

It looks like your wish came true.

You are born into your race period. There is no way to possibly disguise it. White homosexuals do not have to disclose their sexual orientation at a job interview. Black people can not cover up their race to a racist interviewer.
[/quote]

Exactly my point, just because two things share similarities, that doesn’t make them similar. I’m always disgusted by the way sexual orientation and race are always interchanged.
[/quote]

I agree, and so do the many black leaders who have repudiated homosexuals who continually try to draw such a comparison.

Lucasa,

  1. I never guaranteed that your gay family member would find a loving, committed life partner as I was fortunate to do. His odds of doing so are greater if he has sincere acceptance and support from family members, and chooses to live responsibly.

  2. Your claim that homosexuality has not been studied, and is not well understood is simply false. 35 years of scientific research supports the unanimous conclusions of the health organizations.

  3. I never stated or even insinuated that gays don’t need to make smart, responsible choices. Obviously there are still some that will be irresponsible despite having a secure support network, just like in the heterosexual world. Call it assuaging if you like, but the positive effects of loving, accepting family and friends are enormous. It saves lives, and significantly improves the quality of those lives:

[quote]. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

  • 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide

  • 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression

  • 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs

  • 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex[/quote]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lucasa,

  1. I never guaranteed that your gay family member would find a loving, committed life partner as I was fortunate to do. His odds of doing so are greater if he has sincere acceptance support from family members, and chooses to live responsibly.

  2. Your claim that homosexuality has not been studied, and is not well understood is simply false. 35 years of scientific research supports the unanimous conclusions of the health organizations.

  3. I never stated or even insinuated that gays don’t need to make smart, responsible choices. Obviously there are still some that will be irresponsible despite having a secure support network, just like in the heterosexual world. Call it assuaging if you like, but the positive effects of loving, accepting family and friends are enormous. It saves lives, and significantly improves the quality of those lives:

[quote]. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

  • 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide

  • 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression

  • 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs

  • 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex[/quote][/quote]

And those who are accepted are also prone to higher STD’s, HIV, anal cancer, and a host of other emotional problems. Accepted or not the facts are in and homosexual men are dying at a higher rate than any other group.

This is backed up by all major medical associations.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lucasa,

  1. I never guaranteed that your gay family member would find a loving, committed life partner as I was fortunate to do. His odds of doing so are greater if he has sincere acceptance support from family members, and chooses to live responsibly.[/quote]

You’re absolutely right. You didn’t offer any solid guidance, you just blindly regurgitated some marginally relevant and unactionable “facts” associated with your belief system. I think you’d agree that we already have enough people mindlessly blathering on about dogma.

Since the matter is so settled, you can explain how, after the CDC spent two and a half decades attempting to correct its naive assertion that AIDS is a gay disease, the WHO rather conclusively and directly stated HIV is a gay disease. You can also explain to me how, around the world, the only places homosexuals don’t seem to be spreading HIV are under brutally oppressive social regimes. Also, could you explain how the CDC says homosexuality is not a disease and homosexuals should not try to change their orientation while the WHO has an exact mental disease defined by and designated for people who desire to change their sexual orientation? Also, please explain clearly about whether or not a movement from asexual to hetero/homosexual constitutes a change in orientation or not and why. If yes, what is the consensus opinion about how that would fit into the conflicting recommendations/designations above?

So, after the vast timespan of 35 years, you’d assert that we know absolutely everything there is to know about homosexuality? Or is there very much the potential to look back in 35 years with a sense of naivete the way we do now (or did 35 yrs. ago)? Also looking back, I remember this from fourth grade, it’s called The Scientific Method; formulate a hypothesis, collect some data, rephrase your hypothesis so that at least some of your data supports it, acquire majority support from socio-political institutions, declare consensus, deny and/or actively disallow any and all dissent. It’s how you do science when you prioritize things like the status quo, self, pride, and superficial labels above innovation, altruism, honesty, truth, and fidelity.

I claimed that there are no protocols for eliminating (or reducing to population averages) depression/suicide. Not a statistically significantly lessening, eliminating. I claimed that even if there were said protocols, there’s no evidence as to the efficacy. I further claimed that observational studies showing beneficial treatment leading to beneficial outcomes is not at all actionable on a national level, esp. in the United States. The only places where homophobia and the spreading of HIV in the MSM population doesn’t exist are the same places where “homosexuals don’t exist.” As long as this is the land of the free, people will be free to discriminate against whites, blacks, hispanics, jews, christians, and homosexuals.

What if they decide that homosexuality was a mistake? Your unabashed support of the CDC’s recommendations would suggest that it’s not their choice to make.

The difference is, in the heterosexual world and the world in general, we generally regard grossly irresponsible (degenerative and im/compulsive) behavior as a symptom (not just sexual behavior). Some even go so far as to identify it as a mental disorder. More generally, any way you slice it, it usually elicits a response between apathy and disdain.

No doubt, but this assumes those family and friends are present in the first place and/or that some preceding and/or underlying behavior pattern hasn’t alienated them (e.g. drug abuse or HIV status). Similarly the prevalence of anecdotes about homosexuals who are surprised by the ‘lack of surprise’ and the support that the family provided a priori is hardly irrelevant and very much unstudied. I’m not saying we have to study every little detail, but until recently there were no metrics to determine favorability and even now there is no protocol except “be supportive and hope it works”.

As I’ve said, we can agree to an independence of sexuality and social/mental disorders. However, yourself and others extend that towards a VIRTUAL mutual exclusion (while the association are pretty evident) by generating and enforcing policies like the ones above.

Lucasa,

Let’s cut to the chase. It always comes down to this in the end of these discussions:

Either every major health organization, from the CDC to the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Surgeon General, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. is wrong, or the views of organizations like NARTH with an admitted homophobic bias are wrong. Not coincidentally, most of the latter tend to be believers with a religious conviction against homosexuality.

So which is it?

Who is more likely to be correct? The scientists and health practitioners, based on 35 years of research on homosexuality, or the believers with a religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin?

I realized long ago that no amount of scientific evidence would make any difference to a believer. When you have faith, why do you need facts? Clearly, science just hasn’t figured it out yet. Or…maybe science actually has figured it out and the believers should leave the facts to science. Not that all believers oppose homosexuality; many do in fact get it.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]method_man wrote:

Were homosexuals uprooted from their motherland, sold into slavery and then systematically oppressed for 400 years?

[/quote]

No, but white people were. In fact whites comprised the majority of early slaves shipped to the new world. And try 800+ years of systematic oppression for my folk. My folk were still being rounded up and held indefinitely without charge in the 1980’s. Howzabout dropping the victimhood silly buggers game because your demands for reparations make you a frigging laughing stock.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

[quote]
Black folks could never be “in the closet” from white racists.[/quote]

White folk could never be ‘in the closet’ from black racists.[/quote]

Those psuedo rastas better stop smoking that shit:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I agree, and so do the many black leaders who have repudiated homosexuals who continually try to draw such a comparison. [/quote]

It annoys some of us to no end, the way homos try to compare themselves to us.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]method_man wrote:

Were homosexuals uprooted from their motherland, sold into slavery and then systematically oppressed for 400 years?

[/quote]

No, but white people were. In fact whites comprised the majority of early slaves shipped to the new world. And try 800+ years of systematic oppression for my folk. My folk were still being rounded up and held indefinitely without charge in the 1980’s. Howzabout dropping the victimhood silly buggers game because your demands for reparations make you a frigging laughing stock.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

[quote]
Black folks could never be “in the closet” from white racists.[/quote]

White folk could never be ‘in the closet’ from black racists.[/quote]

You know between you and that other joker you would think that all of the slaves were white, all of the presidents black (except for Uncle Otama who is obviously white,lol,) the police sicked on the white civil rights activists were black,etc.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]method_man wrote:

Black folks could never be “in the closet” from white racists.[/quote]

Don’t tell that to all those blacks who used to “pass.”[/quote]

Actually in the South, didn’t white folks used to use the paper bag rule? I doubt even Greg Gumbel could even pass for white down there.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lucasa,

Let’s cut to the chase. It always comes down to this in the end of these discussions:

Either every major health organization, from the CDC to the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Surgeon General, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. is wrong, or the views of organizations like NARTH with an admitted homophobic bias are wrong. Not coincidentally, most of the latter tend to be believers with a religious conviction against homosexuality.

So which is it?

Who is more likely to be correct? The scientists and health practitioners, based on 35 years of research on homosexuality, or the believers with a religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin?

I realized long ago that no amount of scientific evidence would make any difference to a believer. When you have faith, why do you need facts? Clearly, science just hasn’t figured it out yet. Or…maybe science actually has figured it out and the believers should leave the facts to science. Not that all believers oppose homosexuality; many do in fact get it.

[/quote]

This has been explained to you repeatedly but for some reason (yeah we know the reason) you don’t want to face it.

When the APA fell to a few key homosexual activists it changed it’s policy on gay mental health within something like 48 hours. No testing, no surveys and no science. Pure politics. When this happened the other organizations of which you speak had no alternative but to change their policy as the APA was the lead psycholocial organization.

Once again, here is the full story for those who were not aware:

[quote]In 1963, the New York Academy of Medicine charged its Committee on Public Health to report on homosexuality because they feared it was on the increase. The Committee reported:

[H]omosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.

But just 10 years later, everything changed. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses. Why was this done? As Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., details in his book, â??Homosexuality and the Politics of Truthâ??:

Ronald Bayer, then a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York, reported that in 1970, homosexual activists within the APA planned a â??systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.â??

Like bullies on the playground, homosexual activists didnâ??t want to play by the rules. You know, the rules that say if you want to influence a body of science, you should conduct properly designed studies and build scientific research that makes your case. No. There werenâ??t any scientific studies like that (still arenâ??t). No problem, just harass and intimidate those scientists who present properly designed studies that you donâ??t like. Like Dr. Irving Bieber, prominent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, who presented a paper on â??homosexuality and transsexualismâ?? at the 1970 APA convention. Instead of challenging his findings by questioning the accuracy of his research methods, they just disrupted his presentation. Way easier. Especially when there isnâ??t any research to support your position.

Imagine the prestigious, scientific setting of the APA conference where Dr. Bieber presents his study â?? homosexual activists employ what has become their customary tactic: fear and intimidation. As Bieber begins to present his research, homosexual attendees loudly mock and laugh at him. They further disrupt his presentation by shouting and calling him names and making threats, suggesting he deserved to be â??drawn and quartered.â?? If we said something like that about homosexuals, itâ??d be a â??hate crime.â??

On May 3, 1971, the psychiatrist protesters broke into a meeting of distinguished members of their profession and grabbed the microphone â?? giving it to one of their allied outside activists, who proclaimed:

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. â?¦ Weâ??re rejecting you all as our owners.

â??No one raised an objection,â?? recounts Dr. Satinover. Their disruption was met with more reconciliation and an appearance before the APAâ??s Committee on Nomenclature. Further bullying and lobbying delivered the committee vote that maybe, just maybe, homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder after all.

By the time of the 1973 APA convention, the group announced its new â??findingâ?? with only 15 minutes for dissenters to discuss 70 years of psychiatric research to the contrary. The hijacked vote was formally appealed to the full membership. But activists already had a letter drafted, in part by friends at the National Gay Taskforce, urging a vote to â??retain the nomenclature change,â?? which was sent to the 30,000 APA members with the money the NGTF had raised. Of course, no one let on to APA members that the letter came from homosexual activists, as Dr. Bayer revealed, â??that would have been â??the kiss of death.â??â?? But the letter drafted and paid for by the NGTF was able to secure a majority response from a third of the members who responded. But the vast majority was not behind the change. How do I know? Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing “69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.”[/quote]

For those who have been drinking in forlife’s swill reread that final sentence.

Politically correct twisted logic BUSTED AGAIN!

[quote]method_man wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]method_man wrote:

Were homosexuals uprooted from their motherland, sold into slavery and then systematically oppressed for 400 years?

[/quote]

No, but white people were. In fact whites comprised the majority of early slaves shipped to the new world. And try 800+ years of systematic oppression for my folk. My folk were still being rounded up and held indefinitely without charge in the 1980’s. Howzabout dropping the victimhood silly buggers game because your demands for reparations make you a frigging laughing stock.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

There’s another joker? Where? YOU SHOW ME WHERE!