'That's So Gay!'

[quidnunc]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
quidnunc wrote:

Sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally neutral.

After claiming the above (with zero proof) you had the temerity to claim that every major medical authority in the world stated the above as well. When you were called on it you disappeared from the thread. I see you’re back again, but before I waste any time refuting more of your nonsensical assertions why don’t you first explain your original statement, the one you ran from?

Thank you.

[/quote]

We have cited evidence, many many many times, that every major relevant professional organization supports the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable (of course, they wouldn’t say “morally neutral” as that’s a philosophical assertion not a medical one, but in any system of ethics worthy of the name that claim follows from the first two).

You could continue to make ludicrous conspiracy assertions, or I guess you could go and find that the Fijian League of Podiatrists hasn’t taken a stance on homosexuality and claim that this contradicts my “all organizations” assertion. But baring that, you really need to accept this uncontroversial point.

[quidnunc]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

"The American Psychological Association admits reorientation therapy is not harmful. Dr. E. Mark Stern, Ed. D. Fellow of the A.P.A. and Professor Emeritus of The Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Iona College N.Y., has acknowledged that “the APA [American Psychological Association at its summer 2001 meeting] did admit that there was no body of evidence to prove that reorientation therapies are harmful.”

The Executive Director of the American Psychological Association, Raymond Fowler states:

The APA’s position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client’s right to self-determination. If an individual is comfortable with homosexuality, it is not the role of the therapist to convince the client otherwise. If one’s feelings are ego-dystonic and there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate if he or she desires. â?? Ray Fowler, CEO, APA"

[/quote]

This is a polite way of saying that people can voluntarily do useless shit if they so desire - it’s a free country. I’m sure they’d smile benignly on people who go to chiropractors or homeopaths, but that doesn’t mean that either of those are legitimate. And this doesn’t begin to address the matter of gay teens or young adults being forced to attend re-education camps by bigoted parents.

We are in a committed, long term monogamous relationship. We are at zero risk of catching HIV, despite Zeb’s claims to the contrary. Maybe he should encourage gays to embrace who they are and enter committed relationships, instead of selling snake oil solutions that everyone knows don’t work.

We’ve had this talk before, there is no safe way to continually have anal sex and be safe.
As it states on all the MAJOR MEDICAL sites the lining of the sphincter is too thin to take that sort of abuse. The lining tears easily and when it does very bad things happen

Do you seriously realize what a non-sequitur all of this is? You quote a great deal of crap to the effect that anal sex sometimes puts people at risk of minor health problems - this is true. But, so what? There are any number of minor problems that can arise from vaginal sex: chafing, soreness, UTIs, the odd penis-breaking during vigorous reverse cowgirl (far more common than you’d think), loss of sensation, bleeding, et cetera.

Now, suppose that anal sex is twice as dangerous as vaginal sex. So what? There’s nothing wrong with doing any number of consensual activities that carry some element of risk, as long as the people doing them are aware of them. Do you think it’s immoral to play tackle football, dance, lift weights, have vaginal sex or venture outside during cold season? No? Then what’s the difference?

CDC SITE STATES:

unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior. It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus.

In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis.

I’m pretty sure that the risk of contracting an STD if neither person has one in the first place is roughly … carry the two … zero percent. Or are you still a believer in spontaneous generation?

[forlife]

Hey Zeb, still waiting for an acknowledgement of the numerous quotes I provided from the leading major medical and mental health organizations.

crickets…

I guess if you bury your head in the sand and keep repeating the same tripe over and over and over again, it makes the actual facts based on 40 years of research go away.

[ZEB]

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
ZEB wrote:
quidnunc wrote:

Sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally neutral.

After claiming the above (with zero proof) you had the temerity to claim that every major medical authority in the world stated the above as well. When you were called on it you disappeared from the thread. I see you’re back again, but before I waste any time refuting more of your nonsensical assertions why don’t you first explain your original statement, the one you ran from?

Thank you.

We have cited evidence, many many many times, that every major relevant professional organization supports the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable (of course, they wouldn’t say “morally neutral”[/quote]

Then I guess your statement is wrong then huh?

Thanks for fessing up.

[quidnunc]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
ZEB wrote:
quidnunc wrote:

Sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally neutral.

After claiming the above (with zero proof) you had the temerity to claim that every major medical authority in the world stated the above as well. When you were called on it you disappeared from the thread. I see you’re back again, but before I waste any time refuting more of your nonsensical assertions why don’t you first explain your original statement, the one you ran from?

Thank you.

We have cited evidence, many many many times, that every major relevant professional organization supports the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable (of course, they wouldn’t say “morally neutral”

Then I guess your statement is wrong then huh?

Thanks for fessing up.

[/quote]

Ahahaha. To think that I gave you the time of day before. You’re a fucking child, and you disgrace only yourself. It’s embarrassing to think that I share a sexual orientation with you.

[ZEB]

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
ZEB wrote:

"The American Psychological Association admits reorientation therapy is not harmful. Dr. E. Mark Stern, Ed. D. Fellow of the A.P.A. and Professor Emeritus of The Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Iona College N.Y., has acknowledged that “the APA [American Psychological Association at its summer 2001 meeting] did admit that there was no body of evidence to prove that reorientation therapies are harmful.”

The Executive Director of the American Psychological Association, Raymond Fowler states:

The APA’s position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client’s right to self-determination. If an individual is comfortable with homosexuality, it is not the role of the therapist to convince the client otherwise. If one’s feelings are ego-dystonic and there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate if he or she desires. Ã?¢?? Ray Fowler, CEO, APA"

This is a polite way of saying that people can voluntarily do useless shit if they so desire - it’s a free country.[/quote]

I think you’ve missed the point, it’s flown well over your liberal head. Then again you could be playing dumb like forlife does.

The point I made is that, ready? IT’S NOT DANGEROUS TO SEEK REPARATIVE THERAPY And that is what forlife has been claiming for since, well, forever.

[quote]
Do you seriously realize what a non-sequitur all of this is?[/quote] Perhaps you think it’s a non-sequitur but I think things like anal warts, a higher incidence of STD’s and anal cancer is quite important.

[quote]
Now, suppose that anal sex is twice as dangerous as vaginal sex. So what? There’s nothing wrong with doing any number of consensual activities that carry some element of risk, as long as the people doing them are aware of them.[/quote]

I think you have to be more than "aware of the risk. You have to do something about it. Maybe you can tell me why men who have sex with men don’t seem to care? Tell me why they lead the list of diseases such as STD’s, HIV, etc.

Can you tell me?

[ZEB]

[quote]quidnunc wrote:

Ahahaha. To think that I gave you the time of day before. You’re a fucking child, and you disgrace only yourself. It’s embarrassing to think that I share a sexual orientation with you. [/quote]

You claimed that all the major medical bla bla bla found homosexuality to not be immoral. You were wrong. The next time before you drone on about things that you do not know about you should get your facts straight.

Sorry that embarrassed you.

I guess being a liberal who has neither lived long enough or studied long enough has its limitations.

All the best,

Zeb

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hey Zeb, still waiting for an acknowledgement of the numerous quotes I provided from the leading major medical and mental health organizations.

crickets…

I guess if you bury your head in the sand and keep repeating the same tripe over and over and over again, it makes the actual facts based on 40 years of research go away.[/quote]

And I’m still waiting for your comment on two things that I posted previously. Do you even remember what they are? Here let me help you out I know you are involved in a lot of gay threads:

1. The Red Cross situation

2. The information I posted regarding pedophilia.

Will either of us get the answers that we want?

Will forlife post another 3000 times in homosexual threads?

Tune in for the next episode in the continuing saga of right vs wrong.

(Sorry didn’t mean to offend the liberal college age crowd who are taught that there is no right or wrong, well actually I did:)

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
IT’S NOT DANGEROUS TO SEEK REPARATIVE THERAPY[/quote]

Talk about playing dumb.

Did you not see the research I provided, which showed that the risk of suicidal thoughts, alcohol/drug abuse, anxiety, and depression is DOUBLE after people go through reparative therapy?

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

1. The Red Cross situation[/quote]

What the hell does that have to do with the validity of the conclusions by the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Surgeon General, etc.? You post that the Red Cross is being lobbied by gay groups, and expect people to take that as evidence that every major medical and mental health organization is so politically biased that their scientific conclusions are worthless? Seriously?

2. The information I posted regarding pedophilia.

Not only is this a shameless red herring, but it is directly contradicted by 40 years of research by the leading medical and mental health organizations.

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women…There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).

Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified - fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994).

Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects’ penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
IT’S NOT DANGEROUS TO SEEK REPARATIVE THERAPY

Talk about playing dumb.

Did you not see the research I provided, which showed that the risk of suicidal thoughts, alcohol/drug abuse, anxiety, and depression is DOUBLE after people go through reparative therapy?
[/quote]

But the APA that you’ve touted soooo many times has said that it’s NOT dangerous to seek reparative therapy.

Now tell me are you correct here or is the APA correct?

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:

1. The Red Cross situation

What the hell does that have to do with the validity of the conclusions by the American Medical Association,[/quote]

Psst, it’s a different topic, try to keep up. You said you wanted answers, well so do I.

[eigieinhamr]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You claimed that all the major medical bla bla bla found homosexuality to not be immoral.

Zeb[/quote]

I didn’t think that’s what their job was.

[ZEB]

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You claimed that all the major medical bla bla bla found homosexuality to not be immoral.

Zeb

I didn’t think that’s what their job was.[/quote]

Exactly my point, it was ludicrous to post such a thing.

[quidnunc]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You claimed that all the major medical bla bla bla found homosexuality to not be immoral.

Zeb

I didn’t think that’s what their job was.

Exactly my point, it was ludicrous to post such a thing.[/quote]

I said, correctly, that they’d concluded that it’s innate and immutable. If you aren’t an utter moral cripple, you’ll accept that these facts, plus the fact that it doesn’t affect third parties, imply that it isn’t immoral to be gay.

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But the APA that you’ve touted soooo many times has said that it’s NOT dangerous to seek reparative therapy.

Now tell me are you correct here or is the APA correct?
[/quote]

I love how you have constantly demonized the APA as being a political pro-gay pawn whose conclusions on homosexuality are worthless, but now that you find out they don’t take away a person’s license for practicing reparative therapy, you think they are worth listening to after all.

Too rich.

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:

1. The Red Cross situation

What the hell does that have to do with the validity of the conclusions by the American Medical Association,

Psst, it’s a different topic, try to keep up. You said you wanted answers, well so do I.
[/quote]

As if you weren’t trying to use the petitioning of the Red Cross as some kind of evidence that gay lobbying is the reason every major medical and mental health organization has drawn conclusions on homosexuality that oppose your personal views.

[ZEB]

[quote]quidnunc wrote:

I said, correctly, that they’d concluded that it’s innate and immutable. If you aren’t an utter moral cripple, you’ll accept that these facts, plus the fact that it doesn’t affect third parties, imply that it isn’t immoral to be gay.

[/quote]

Well, let’s take a look at exactly what you said shall we kid?

First you said this: [quote]Sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally neutral. Race is innate, immutable, and morally neutral.[/quote]

Then you tried to back it up with this: [quote]We’ve quoted dozens of studies and the opinion of ever major medical and psychological organization in the world.[/quote]

You’re still trying to claim that you were correct when in fact the statement as it stands is false. Every major medical and psychological organization in the world claims that homosexuality is morally neutral? Funny stuff kid, funny stuff. What would one of your prof’s say? Since probably none of the organizations listed make any moral claims I’m sure you’d only get partial credit.

That would make your original assertion incorrect.

You can name call (and that’s about all you have at this point) but it seems to me you should be admitting the error and moving on. You can still be liberal and and scream about equality for gays and make silly comparisons to black slavery, but on this point, you lose. Sometimes as adults we have to admit when we’re wrong, perhaps the high opinion that you have of yourself would take too much of hit?

Hey, don’t worry about it when I was 21 I thought I knew everything too.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But the APA that you’ve touted soooo many times has said that it’s NOT dangerous to seek reparative therapy.

Now tell me are you correct here or is the APA correct?

I love how you have constantly demonized the APA as being a political pro-gay pawn whose conclusions on homosexuality are worthless, but now that you find out they don’t take away a person’s license for practicing reparative therapy, you think they are worth listening to after all.

Too rich.

[/quote]

I never once made a claim that they were worth listening to. It’s you who built them up as the ultimate authority on homosexuality. Now that you’ve read that they are not opposed to reparative therapy and they say IT CAN DO NO HARM what do you think of them?

Ironic isn’t it?