Hey, I was going to give 8/10 too. I thought 6/10 was definitely too little.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
‘Unanimously’, huh? When did social scientists ever agree unanimously on anything?
Laughable, in toto.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m getting tired of people citing the ‘collective consciousness of the scientific community’ and the ‘majority of experts the field’ on almost any topic. If they’ve set up some sort of representative system and got together and voted, I might be convinced it actually means something other than just ‘some scientists think’. Even then, they’d be watering down the latest technology and greatest minds with the tenured professors and yes men.
Might as well start your argument with ‘four out of five dentists recommend…’.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
‘Unanimously’, huh? When did social scientists ever agree unanimously on anything?
Laughable, in toto.
Yeah, I’m getting tired of people citing the ‘collective consciousness of the scientific community’ and the ‘majority of experts the field’ on almost any topic. If they’ve set up some sort of representative system and got together and voted, I might be convinced it actually means something other than just ‘some scientists think’. Even then, they’d be watering down the latest technology and greatest minds with the tenured professors and yes men.
Might as well start your argument with ‘four out of five dentists recommend…’.
[/quote]
Then its all in how you ask the survey questions.
EX:
Homosexuality is most closely…
A) a psychological defect
B) a house full of burritos
C) the Easter Bunny
D) t-shirt
Then you could claim almost all experts responded homosexuality is most closely a psychological defect.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
‘Unanimously’, huh? When did social scientists ever agree unanimously on anything?
Laughable, in toto.
Yeah, I’m getting tired of people citing the ‘collective consciousness of the scientific community’ and the ‘majority of experts the field’ on almost any topic. If they’ve set up some sort of representative system and got together and voted, I might be convinced it actually means something other than just ‘some scientists think’. Even then, they’d be watering down the latest technology and greatest minds with the tenured professors and yes men.
Might as well start your argument with ‘four out of five dentists recommend…’.
Then its all in how you ask the survey questions.
EX:
Homosexuality is most closely…
A) a psychological defect
B) a house full of burritos
C) the Easter Bunny
D) t-shirt
Then you could claim almost all experts responded homosexuality is most closely a psychological defect.[/quote]
Robert Perloff, former president of the American Psychological Association, charged that it is “too politically correct, too bureaucratic, too obeisant to special interests.” He stated that APA?s view of conversion therapy is “all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you’re barring research.”
Why waste time and money asking questions? Agree with an idea that isn’t distinctly unpopular, maybe one that similar professional organizations hold similar views on, and draft a press release. Oppress opposing views, cover your ears when people ask questions, slap each other on the back, and call it scientific consensus.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Further, to the point you are talking about, you use that logic all the time against religion.
Dude, are you being deliberately dense or what?
I’m not using “that logic” against religion. I’m simply showing how “that logic” is flawed in the first place. The person using “that logic” was trying to make the point that science can’t be trusted, because it was initially wrong about homosexuality being a disorder. If “that logic” is flawed when applied to religion, then “that logic” is similarly flawed when applied to science.
I’m just asking people to use the same standard, whether evaluating scientific or religious progress. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Anyone who denies that sex evolved for procreation is arguing against the facts. Why, for ex, don’t we simply clone or reproduce asexually? Because reality is chaotic. Asexuality is suited for a very stable environment. Our world is NOT like that.
Therefore, sex between disparate groups evolved to ensure the continuance of Life. It did NOT evolve simply for pleasure; that’s a consequent, not a cause.
So, homosexuality is an aberation, an error…and errors should NOT be in charge of raising children, teaching them to enter into non-reproductive relationships. Those relationships are a dead end, and thus unnatural.
[/quote]
Erm, not quite.
Meiosis developed for exactly the reasons that you state. Sexual intercourse in different animals serves different purposes. In humans and great apes it is related to creating bonds and controlling hierarchy within groups and is also the method for allowing Meiosis.
Check out video of Bonobos for an extreme example of this.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have no data on whether or not two homosexuals may or may not be more likely to abuse adopted children. However, I do know that a child raised in a more traditional environment would have a far better chance at a normal life.
As I’ve stated in many prior debates on this topic, no one knows how someone becomes gay as yet. Is it nature or nurture? As long as that question has not been answered I don’t think it would be wise to expose children to any sort of sight or sound that would lead them to believe that homosexuality is in fact normal. We all know (those of us who are parents) that children learn by watching.
I have posted many times a very lengthy list of problems both emotional and physical that homosexuals suffer. Therefore why would any sane society expose children to this?
[/quote]
What about the risk that homosexuality is caused by children being raised in households where there is a loveless marriage between hetrosexual parents?
Or that it is caused by the wrong color lunch pail?
Or any other arbitrary factor.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Further, to the point you are talking about, you use that logic all the time against religion.
Dude, are you being deliberately dense or what?
I’m not using “that logic” against religion. I’m simply showing how “that logic” is flawed in the first place. The person using “that logic” was trying to make the point that science can’t be trusted, because it was initially wrong about homosexuality being a disorder. If “that logic” is flawed when applied to religion, then “that logic” is similarly flawed when applied to science.
I’m just asking people to use the same standard, whether evaluating scientific or religious progress. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Anyone who denies that sex evolved for procreation is arguing against the facts. Why, for ex, don’t we simply clone or reproduce asexually? Because reality is chaotic. Asexuality is suited for a very stable environment. Our world is NOT like that.
Therefore, sex between disparate groups evolved to ensure the continuance of Life. It did NOT evolve simply for pleasure; that’s a consequent, not a cause.
So, homosexuality is an aberation, an error…and errors should NOT be in charge of raising children, teaching them to enter into non-reproductive relationships. Those relationships are a dead end, and thus unnatural.
Erm, not quite.
Meiosis developed for exactly the reasons that you state. Sexual intercourse in different animals serves different purposes. In humans and great apes it is related to creating bonds and controlling hierarchy within groups and is also the method for allowing Meiosis.
Check out video of Bonobos for an extreme example of this.[/quote]
But the ultimate reason for sex is the creation of children. Those other properties are secondary at a biological level. Then, since life wants to increase the chances for survival, it creates many varieties within the species. This increases adaptability as a species.
Look at Ashkanazi Jews (like me): by restricting the gene pool, diseases arose. Adaptability decreased.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
But the ultimate reason for sex is the creation of children. Those other properties are secondary at a biological level. Then, since life wants to increase the chances for survival, it creates many varieties within the species. This increases adaptability as a species.
Look at Ashkanazi Jews (like me): by restricting the gene pool, diseases arose. Adaptability decreased.
[/quote]
I haven’t read every post in this thread, but do you believe that having homosexual couples adopt children will increase the number of homosexuals to such a degree that it will restrict our population to an extent that our adaptability of a species will decrease and diseases will arise due to a lack of genetic variation?
I think that is overestimating how many homosexuals there are/ever will be.
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.[/quote]
I don’t think they are against homosexuals per se, they are just anti pro-homo propaganda. Actually most people don’t give a shit if some dudes love to fuck other dudes or to be fucked hard in their ass hole…but that pro gay propaganda is getting invasive.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
But the ultimate reason for sex is the creation of children. Those other properties are secondary at a biological level. Then, since life wants to increase the chances for survival, it creates many varieties within the species. This increases adaptability as a species.
Look at Ashkanazi Jews (like me): by restricting the gene pool, diseases arose. Adaptability decreased.
I haven’t read every post in this thread, but do you believe that having homosexual couples adopt children will increase the number of homosexuals to such a degree that it will restrict our population to an extent that our adaptability of a species will decrease and diseases will arise due to a lack of genetic variation?
I think that is overestimating how many homosexuals there are/ever will be.[/quote]
After 28 years of teaching, my personal observation is that kids from a home with a mom and dad are better off than any other situation. That is my only point.
I also have nothing against gay people as long as they don’t try and change my culture. Aren’t we supposed to respect other cultures? Well, why do gays get a free pass to fuck with mine?
Children need both mothers and fathers but generally not at the same time.
The mother’s role is very important during the early years of childhood but is eventually superseded by that of the father as the child approaches maturity.
After age 12 or so, normal, non-retarded male children ought to have completely outgrown their mother’s influence and from then on obtain the entirety of their instruction from fathers and older peers.
The youth should be separated from his mother so that she may go into an early retirement of sorts, in which she will be unable to retard the proper development of her son through her emotional tendencies.
That is why proper families used to send their sons off to boarding school.
But these days, kids are being raised by single women and living with them well into their twenties. Consequently, “momism” has taken hold of American men and the general feminization of society proceeds apace…
That’s a real shame. Mothers are for changing diapers, not for telling young men how to act.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I also have nothing against gay people as long as they don’t try and change my culture.[/quote]
That’s like saying:
Gays couldn’t give a fuck about changing your culture. All we care about is the right to visit our partners in the hospital, social security benefits, filing jointly on our tax returns, immigration rights, etc. Believe whatever you want about us, but treat us equally in the civil arena.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Yeah, I’m getting tired of people citing the ‘collective consciousness of the scientific community’ and the ‘majority of experts the field’ on almost any topic. If they’ve set up some sort of representative system and got together and voted, I might be convinced it actually means something other than just ‘some scientists think’. Even then, they’d be watering down the latest technology and greatest minds with the tenured professors and yes men.
[/quote]
The major medical and mental health organizations have conducted research on homosexuality for 40 years, and have published policy statements summarizing this research.
In every single case, these organizations are unanimous in their conclusions on homosexuality.
It doesn’t surprise me that you go through such convolutions to dismiss these conclusions, given your rabid anti-gay agenda. However, that doesn’t make their conclusions any less valid.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I have nothing against blacks as long as they sit at the back of the bus.
Gays couldn’t give a fuck about changing your culture. All we care about is the right to visit our partners in the hospital, social security benefits, filing jointly on our tax returns, immigration rights, etc. Believe whatever you want about us, but treat us equally in the civil arena.[/quote]
Bull-fucking-shit.
First, you have never had your sexuality evaluated and been forced to sit at the back of any vehicle based on the outcome. I know plenty of people who have been forced to the back of a bus, out of a building/park/city/state, just because they want to smoke cigarettes. Give me a break. The only reason you use the ‘back of the bus’ example, despite the fact that it doesn’t apply to you, is because the “rights” society is “denying” you are so flimsy that you have to duct tape them to the atrocities of slavery and segregation to get anyone to pay attention.
It’s sad that the bravery and hardship that won Black Americans the ability to own property, the right to vote, the ability to live and travel as freely as White Americans gets equated with the whining that will get Homosexuals the ‘right’ to file joint returns.
Second, you’re distinctly cherry-picking your examples and distinctly contradicting yourself. True, filing taxes jointly is hardly changing a culture, but stifling research is certainly influencing the scientific culture. Pride parades, gay pride months, gay bars, and gay olympics are certainly influencing the social and athletic cultures. Ranting against churches and their edicts and opinions is most certainly meant to influence their culture.
Third, quit using the word ‘rights’. There is no ‘right’ to eat jelly fucking donuts on a damned Tuesday afternoon, there is no ‘right’ to run-flat tires, there is no ‘right’ to be somewhere that doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals feel you shouldn’t be for any reason. What the hell does immigration RIGHTS even mean? Anyone can enter the country? No. Anyone can be a citizen? Oxy-moronic drivel. Yet another valuable cultural paradigm that is being cheapened by your very poor line of thinking.
People don’t generally get treated equally in the civil arena, when you’re talking about lynchings and being barred from voting, that’s one thing. When you start talking about being able to act any way you want and get equal rights just because you act that way, that’s quite another.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The major medical and mental health organizations have conducted research on homosexuality for 40 years, and have published policy statements summarizing this research.
In every single case, these organizations are unanimous in their conclusions on homosexuality.[/quote]
In 1973 the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year.
Despite the subsequent ‘40 yrs. of unanimity’ homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder as early as 90 yrs. prior (based on scientific research no less!). Moreover, you act as though these organizations admitted guilt and corrected their mistake when, in actuality, they slowly re/decategorized various shades of homosexuality until there was little to be said about the mental health of homosexuals.
The only way you achieve ‘unanimity’ in any capacity is by excluding those that disagree and the only way your statements could be true is by narrowing and the field to say exactly what you want. Hardly objective or scientific.
The WHO spake, “Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder.” How very papal of them to tell people how to think. I wonder if there’s any commandments in the ICD along the lines of “Skin color by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder.” or is one a behavioral anomaly and the other something else completely different?
It’s rabid agenda of truth and accuracy. If your arguments weren’t so poorly constructed, subversive, and so personally linked to your own proclivities, my counter arguments wouldn’t seem so anti-gay.
You don’t have a clue about the discrimination faced by gays. As one example, one of my coworkers was with his partner for 25 years when his partner had a heart attack. Despite granting legal rights to make medical decisions for one another, the hospital refused my coworker the right to even see his partner. He had to wait until his partner’s father arrived and granted explicit permission.
Several State Supreme Courts have explicity disagreed with you on whether gays are discriminated against in their constitutional rights. Of course, you will find a way to dismiss their legal conclusions just like you dismiss the scientific conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization in the world. You are so rabid that no amount of objective evidence will make any difference to your opinions about the evil gays.
You don’t need to “exclude those that disagree” to see that. I can provide official policy statements from the American Medical Association, Surgeon General, American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. to prove that every one of these organizations has drawn the same conclusions about homosexuality based on 40 years of research.
But again, none of that makes any difference to someone like you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was making fun of ZEB who apparently thinks the sins of homosexuality are much worse than his own.[/quote]
I’m sorry that you got confused.
Please tell me where I even mentioned the word “sin” in my previous post on this thread (which was also my first post).
I never mentioned sin even once.
The point of my post, and I don’t know how it could have escaped you, is that we have no idea how or why homosexuals become homosexuals. Therefore, it may not be such a good idea to place young impressionable minds under the guidance of two homosexuals. In fact, I think the Boy Scouts of America agree with me on this one, as do the overwhelming majority of Americans.
But that’s okay you can disagree with me (or us I should say) all you want, but at least understand that at this point the debate is not about sin, it’s more about human beings being healthy and happy (as per the statistics given by the CDC).
[quote]makkun wrote:
PS: No offense ZEB, you know I love ya - in a totally non-gay sense obviously.[/quote]
Back at you makkun, and just for the record I think you have one of the sharpest minds on this board. It’s a shame that we usually oppose each other right down the line on just about every politically charged topic.
Oh well, how’s your training coming?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I have no data on whether or not two homosexuals may or may not be more likely to abuse adopted children. However, I do know that a child raised in a more traditional environment would have a far better chance at a normal life.
As I’ve stated in many prior debates on this topic, no one knows how someone becomes gay as yet. Is it nature or nurture? As long as that question has not been answered I don’t think it would be wise to expose children to any sort of sight or sound that would lead them to believe that homosexuality is in fact normal. We all know (those of us who are parents) that children learn by watching.
I have posted many times a very lengthy list of problems both emotional and physical that homosexuals suffer. Therefore why would any sane society expose children to this?
What about the risk that homosexuality is caused by children being raised in households where there is a loveless marriage between hetrosexual parents?
Or that it is caused by the wrong color lunch pail?
Or any other arbitrary factor.
[/quote]
Glad you agree.
No one knows for sure how homosexuality is caused, that is my very point. Therefore, why place young impressionable minds in the home of two homosexuals? But, I said that now three times I think.
We have to remember that children learn by watching. They tend to imiate what they see.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was making fun of ZEB who apparently thinks the sins of homosexuality are much worse than his own.
I’m sorry that you got confused.
Please tell me where I even mentioned the word “sin” in my previous post on this thread (which was also my first post).
I never mentioned sin even once.
The point of my post, and I don’t know how it could have escaped you, is that we have no idea how or why homosexuals become homosexuals. Therefore, it may not be such a good idea to place young impressionable minds under the guidance of two homosexuals. In fact, I think the Boy Scouts of America agree with me on this one, as do the overwhelming majority of Americans.
But that’s okay you can disagree with me (or us I should say) all you want, but at least understand that at this point the debate is not about sin, it’s more about human beings being healthy and happy (as per the statistics given by the CDC).
[/quote]
First, I was using sins and a general term, not a religious reference. My point being that no one is perfect and heterosexual couples have flaws too. Are heterosexual couples deemed worthy based on their sexual life? If they like “kinky” things, should they be refused adoption?
To my knowledge homosexuals can be healthy and happy, so if that is your method of calling it a “flaw” I don’t get it. Policemen have very high suicide rates, I guess cops should be able to adopt kids.
You sound like you are talking about a contagious disease in your posts.
What if it’s a hetero couple with gay neighbors? Is that too much exposure to gay germs?
[quote]forlife wrote:
The major medical and mental health organizations have conducted research on homosexuality for 40 years, and have published policy statements summarizing this research.
In every single case, these organizations are unanimous in their conclusions on homosexuality.
[/quote]
Oh forlife you are spouting off the same old nonsense that you’ve been passing off as truth for several years now.
I’ll post the following for those who want the unbiased truth on exactly how and why the APA removed homosexuality as a disease. It, of course, had NOTHING to do with the facts.
Here you go:
READ THIS
"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”
The above is THE truth on what happened with in the APA.