Duce you seem WAY better at arguing than me, nice job.
And ForLife judos for keeping your cool and answering all the questions.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Duce you seem WAY better at arguing than me, nice job.
And ForLife judos for keeping your cool and answering all the questions.
[/quote]
HAH! I wasn’t even trying to argue. I just honestly wanted to read the studies and by chance called him on his BS.
I honestly think I’m more on forelifes side of the argument, but like normal, we disagree on the extrapolation of science.
I can even see cause for homosexual parents being better foster ones. It isn’t easy for them to be together or struggle to have the right to raise a child. To me that may mean they might care more about said child than average foster parents who may take the right for granted. I was also thinking that if a couple isn’t physically able to have children, they may be less likely to view or make the child feel outside of their established family unit. Heck even kids getting picked on in school could drive a loving family together and strengthen it. I don’t know, that’s why I want to see the studies.
For some reason I just can’t believe that in 1979 when these organizations flipped their stance on homosexuality as a defect, they suddenly became trustworthy.
The best any organisation can do at the moment is speculate on what would happen.
So i do think Forlife is giving you the most up to date stuff, its just that its not very strong.
Im also in the science field so makes this thread alot harder to pass off observations/speculations as facts
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Way to be an anti-discrimination progressive there. But why pray tell to you only use stereotypes against Christians and conservatives then take offense to stereotypes of others?
…you will be unsuccesfull in finding such insulting and derogatory posts, like those from Mick28, written by me on this forum. Go ahead, try it…
“…don’t you know; only god fearin’, bible believin’ patriotic republicans are allowed to be insulting, confrontational, and be right assholes without impunity around these parts…”
…that’s it? One post out of app. 600 that’s moderately insulting means i’m really a nice guy (-:
I only looked back through 1 post, not 600, so you are 100% insulting from my approximation. =0)
…and you’re supposed to be trained in the scientific method? Hmm… 
Looking at the sample sizes of those studies, I’m just about right.[/quote]
…cool! So, if i meet one person that acts like an asshole and happens to be a christian, based on your criteria, it’s safe for me to assume all christians are assholes. That’s good to know…
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t know how to do a more effective study
Bingo, which is why the conclusions of doctors and researchers who are trained in the scientific method should trump individual opinions, particularly when every major medical and mental health organization has drawn similar conclusions.[/quote]
I’ve posted numerous times the way in which the APA was hijacked by the militant gay part of the organization. There was never any credible research performed to make such a change it was purely political, purely.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The fact that you have to go back thousands of years to come up with an example really says it all. Also, there were more bisexual spartans than homosexual Spartans. But, that is not relevant in 2009 anyway is it?
So the entire Spartan army was bisexual[/quote]
Is that what YOU derived from the passage posted? Wow, no one has ever made that claim to my knowledge. You surprise me sometimes with your lack of good sound reasoning. You seem to just throw things out there and hope that they stick. I honestly think you were sharper a couple of years ago.
You want this whole gay issue to be so much in your favor that you ignore fact after fact. Sorry my friend but what you think is correct is simply wrong and it’s been shown to you over and over again.
If you read closely you would see that true homosexuality was as rare as it is today, perhaps 1% to 3% of the population. Also, like today, it was a practice that was not accepted. Did you even read the page? Honestly Forlife you are disappointing this time around.
[quote]I know of no heterosexual man of today that has any interest in having sex with another man.
Because he’s…drumroll…heterosexual.[/quote]
Skip the drum roll and focus on what we were talking about. If you recall the debate (within the debate) was about the question of why homosexual men (over 85% of them) seem to be able to become aroused with both males AND females.
My contention is that there are very, very few truly homosexual men. The reality is most are bisexual. That’s why the comparison that was made to heterosexual men NOT being able to become aroused with another man.
So, to use your own term, (drumroll: Why is it that so called "heterosexual men are able to have sex (at least over 85% of them) with females?
[quote]
Just because a Spartan had sex with other men doesn’t mean he was capable of having a loving, romantic, emotional relationship with another man.[/quote]
That sort of strikes me as strange, but right on for your style. Once the ball is driven down the field, you want to change fields and games. Anyway, before we get into the purely emotional end of things, as that would be even more difficult to prove, let’s stick to the question of why homosexual men are even able to become aroused with a woman.
Answer that question and then we can move on to which sex makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.
[quote]You have absolutely no right to say that. There has not been any sort of long term studies done with any sort of sizeable group. How could there be for heaven sakes this is a more recent phenomenon.
I don’t need to say it, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, etc. have said it for me based on 30 years of research.[/quote]
At this point I’d like to see a long term study where a large group of gay parents, and off spring (oxymoron) where studied. A peer reviewed paper would do the trick.
Anyone can say anything, you, me, any organization politically controlled, proving it is another matter. Let’s see some proof please, or stop posting it.
Thanks.
Here’s some science for you. Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina. Put them together and you get a baby in 9 months. God, or mother nature, or whatever the fuck you believe in didn’t give men the organs they need to reproduce without women and vice versa. Maybe there’s a reason for that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t know how to do a more effective study
Bingo, which is why the conclusions of doctors and researchers who are trained in the scientific method should trump individual opinions, particularly when every major medical and mental health organization has drawn similar conclusions.
As side note, that policy is over 5 years old and no longer active.
The policy is still active, as are the similar policies of the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, National Society of Social Workers, etc. [/quote]
Substituting someone else’s judgment for your own is usually ill advised. Lawyers, doctors, scientists, and so on, are very rarely ultimate experts on anything. Just as it is rare to find a good one of those, I wouldn’t trust any group of social scientists at all — they only keep their jobs or get tenure if they follow the ‘party line’.
[quote]TxCASH wrote:
Here’s some science for you. Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina. Put them together and you get a baby in 9 months. God, or mother nature, or whatever the fuck you believe in didn’t give men the organs they need to reproduce without women and vice versa. Maybe there’s a reason for that.[/quote]
Common sense. And now Forlife’s panel of ‘experts’ will dispute every word of it. That’s how the scum get tenure.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
Here’s some science for you. Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina. Put them together and you get a baby in 9 months. God, or mother nature, or whatever the fuck you believe in didn’t give men the organs they need to reproduce without women and vice versa. Maybe there’s a reason for that.
Common sense. And now Forlife’s panel of ‘experts’ will dispute every word of it. That’s how the scum get tenure.
[/quote]
Since when was anything that black and white? Like I keep telling you, read up on the gay uncle theory.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
TxCASH wrote:
Here’s some science for you. Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina. Put them together and you get a baby in 9 months. God, or mother nature, or whatever the fuck you believe in didn’t give men the organs they need to reproduce without women and vice versa. Maybe there’s a reason for that.
Common sense. And now Forlife’s panel of ‘experts’ will dispute every word of it. That’s how the scum get tenure.
Since when was anything that black and white? Like I keep telling you, read up on the gay uncle theory.[/quote]
"Marx formed the first Internationale with Mikhail Bakunin, the God Father of Anarchism who wrote,
“In this revolution, we will have to awaken the devil in people, to stir up the basest passions”.
Doesn’t this describe the world we live in today? All around is social decay and chaos, intended and designed to create the desired response in the people, that something must be done. We see violence, pornography, gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, all the vices extolled and normalised, together with the perverse promotion of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice and extreme feminism, disguised as women's rights being used to socially and morally emasculate men, turning God’s natural order on it’s head, and weakening that element in society most likely to become an obstruction to the plan. More recently, the European Union tabled a motion to legalise Pedophilia. How far down this road do we need to be driven before people say enough? The Masonic Motto Out of Chaos Order aptly applies to our world today, and Satan appears to reign supreme."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Way to be an anti-discrimination progressive there. But why pray tell to you only use stereotypes against Christians and conservatives then take offense to stereotypes of others?
…you will be unsuccesfull in finding such insulting and derogatory posts, like those from Mick28, written by me on this forum. Go ahead, try it…
“…don’t you know; only god fearin’, bible believin’ patriotic republicans are allowed to be insulting, confrontational, and be right assholes without impunity around these parts…”
…that’s it? One post out of app. 600 that’s moderately insulting means i’m really a nice guy (-:
I only looked back through 1 post, not 600, so you are 100% insulting from my approximation. =0)
…and you’re supposed to be trained in the scientific method? Hmm…
Looking at the sample sizes of those studies, I’m just about right.
…cool! So, if i meet one person that acts like an asshole and happens to be a christian, based on your criteria, it’s safe for me to assume all christians are assholes. That’s good to know…
[/quote]
Yes, as is every human. Since that christian was also a human. infact that one post of yours leads me to believe we’re all assholes.
But if you’ve ever met a good caring one, then they are all good caring assholes…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Since when was anything that black and white? Like I keep telling you, read up on the gay uncle theory.[/quote]
What exactly do you think that theory says?
It’s a poor argument to support homosexuals as equals.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Since when was anything that black and white? Like I keep telling you, read up on the gay uncle theory.
What exactly do you think that theory says?
It’s a poor argument to support homosexuals as equals.[/quote]
I think it says they have a valid position in society.
[quote]TxCASH wrote:
Here’s some science for you. Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina. Put them together and you get a baby in 9 months. God, or mother nature, or whatever the fuck you believe in didn’t give men the organs they need to reproduce without women and vice versa. Maybe there’s a reason for that.[/quote]
Maybe there is a reason for homosexuality too…?
Maybe reproduction isn’t the end-all-be-all of human life. Clearly, just because a woman can pop a kid out of her twat doesn’t mean every woman should…and clearly not every heterosexual male needs to put his prick in there and attempt to bring forth life.
The fact that there are homosexuals that exist in nature means that homosexuality is perfectly natural.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not asking for every single study, but I would think you’d read some in order to know the science so well.[/quote]
I’ve never claimed to “know the science so well”. To the contrary, I’ve said that I don’t consider myself an expert ini this field, and defer to the major medical and mental health organizations, who actually are the experts.
[quote]Argument from authority - Wikipedia
Read that to see why you aren’t logically coherent.[/quote]
Per your reference:
I’ve specifically said that I don’t consider the medical and mental health organizations to be infallible. However, given their expertise and commitment to public health, it is reasonable to accept their conclusions as compelling. This is further reinforced by the unanimity of these conclusions across each and every major medical and mental health organization.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you recall the debate (within the debate) was about the question of why homosexual men (over 85% of them) seem to be able to become aroused with both males AND females.[/quote]
Why is it that men were able to become aroused with other men through the societal norm of pederasty? If your argument made any sense, it would have been impossible for most of these men to participate in this practice.
See above. I’m not going to limit the discussion to sexual acts, because you and I both know that romance, love, and emotional connection are as important to a long term healthy relationship as the sex itself.
You can google individual studies as well as I can. I’m not going there, because I don’t believe in armchair science and cherry picking. My contention is that the major medical and mental health organizations have reviewed the research, and drawn unanimous conclusions based on that research.
You can challenge these conclusions on the basis of all of these organizations being so politically biased that their conclusions are dishonest and worthless, but you can’t dispute that these organizations have in fact drawn these conclusions.