What do gays really want?

[fdd2blk]

why are gay men exposing themselves to me on my LIVE glassblowing channel?

i want answers damnit.

fucking perverts.

 

[dukeofbaja]

That is wrong on many levels

 

[fdd2blk]

That is wrong on many levels

my thoughts as well. one minute i'm minding my own business blowing glass. i have 7 or 8 people watching. then BAM, LIVE sex action. i close them out and they log back on. i boot them again. they hang for a few minutes then finally leave.

why?

 

[PadawanBater]

Probably just to fuck with you.

 

[fdd2blk]

Probably just to fuck with you.

it wasn't me they were fucking. lol


why don't women do this?

 

[dukeofbaja]

I blame it on the gay agenda

 

[fdd2blk]

they were hoping my uncontrollable urges would get the best of me?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

why are gay men exposing themselves to me on my LIVE glassblowing channel?

i want answers damnit.

fucking perverts.

Maybe they were searching for 'g/l ass blowing' and stumbled upon your channel.

Perhaps you've been 'exposed' to a previously overlooked segment of the market.

Gay Glass.

 

[RickWhite]

And you think it is "natural" that someone wants to be under the influence of a substance twenty-four/seven? To never maintain the responsibilities of someone who lives a sober lifestyle and manages with their issues (whether psychological, or social) via coping with the use of a substance?

These arguments can be utilized in other forms, should you open your eyes to them.

Open my eyes????

I absolutely would argue that excessive drug use and failure to be a functional member of society is a huge problem. This too, is nearly always caused by childhood trauma or neglect. That is precisely why I think drug dependency should always be treated as a mental health issue and not a criminal one. I am also disgusted by parents who play the role of the innocent victim who did the bet they could - it is bullshit. Good parents produce doctors and lawyers, bad ones produce drug addicts.

 

[shepj]

Open my eyes????

I absolutely would argue that excessive drug use and failure to be a functional member of society is a huge problem. This too, is nearly always caused by childhood trauma or neglect. That is precisely why I think drug dependency should always be treated as a mental health issue and not a criminal one. I am also disgusted by parents who play the role of the innocent victim who did the bet they could - it is bullshit. Good parents produce doctors and lawyers, bad ones produce drug addicts.

Funny enough we're on a site where plenty of people here stay fucked up all day, everyday.

I agree with what you said. I think it goes further than parenting though. I think you have it with trauma or neglect.. it is our coping (or lack thereof) that leads to this type of behavior I am led to believe.

 

[RickWhite]

Not much to say Rick. But why, how and for what reason do you think there is a "secret" or otherwise agenda. Do you think there is an ongoing clandestine conspiracy to make the whole world gay?

Why is it that you think the way you think? Sometimes folks who are so vocal have something in their past. Some may have been molested by a male figure in their youth? Who knows?

My opinion, and it is just that, is when folks hysterically define, defend, and promote fringe views that involve an irrational perceived threat or danger, then there is a serious problem with that individual. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, would be a classic example of this.

Great question - I'm glad you asked.

I'm going to ignore the ad-hominem attacks and answer your question.

I think that most people tend to over simplify things and tend to overlook nuance. In this instance, we have the vehemently anti-Gay Religious Right who dismisses homosexuality as a sin. On the other, we have the do good Liberals who take another over simplified view.

Liberals are defined by the belief that they believe themselves to by more enlightened than the rest of us and that they ought to use this divine gift to engineer society in order to make it a better place.

With respect to Gays, Liberals believe that if they can portray homosexuality in a good light, as a product of nature and not one of abuse or neglect, they can remove the negative stigma and foster a cultural acceptance of homosexuality that will result in better treatment of Gays.

In their minds, this is the long and short of the issue and promoting the right ideas, be they true or false, is just a means to an end.

And, because Liberals see the end as good and the only thing that matters, they see anyone who opposes the means as evil, mean spirited, homophobic, etc. Which, is why these charges have been consistently leveled against me regardless of the fact that I have not made a single hateful statement. All I have done is to bring into question some of the facts of the issue. People choose to perceive this as hateful because, and only because, the particular facts might not support their desired ends.

The thought process I am describing is no secret agenda or conspiracy. This is the way the Left approaches most issues - it is an intellectual cop-out at best and in many cases I believe it is the best a lot of people can do. In any case, this is why every argument made by the Left ends in the Left calling the other person a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, etc. It is not that the person is any of things - it is that when the person questions the means, the Left assumes it is a refutation of the ends. And after all, only a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, etc. would refute ends that are clearly good. Do you see the fallacy of reason here?

What I am trying to get across is that questioning the underlying facts does not mean you are against the ends and that people should be more thorough in their analysis of things instead of starting with the ends and backward reasoning.

Homosexuality very well may have environmental causes because most things do. We can not and should not arbitrarily select a benign cause as a quick way of arriving at a given end regardless of how well intended. What we should be doing is beginning serious scientific inquiry into the truth of the matter. Sadly, at this time, the social sciences are dominated by radical Leftists who are suppressing science for exactly the reasons I have mentioned.

Below is a mission statement from the APA regarding homosexuality. Does this sound like a scientific community concerned with knowledge or like an advocacy group?
Such a statement is wholly inappropriate for a group of health care professionals and nowhere else in the medical community will one find such language. The fact is, this community is doing exactly what I have described and is guilty of suppressing all research and opinions that are contrary to their stated goal.

What we need is real research that will help us understand this phenomenon and not just that which promotes politically correct attitudes.


Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This pamphlet is designed to provide accurate [politically correct] information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

It might also surprise you to know that prior to 1975 homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder. It was removed from the list in part due to the fact that the new president of the APA was himself bisexual. Here is a little more info.

http://narth.com/docs/normalization.html


There is no issue in which I will support an "ends justify the means" mentality or blindly jump on the PC band wagon. This issue is no different from any other.

 

[shepj]

It might also surprise you to know that prior to 1975 homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder. It was removed from the list in part do to the fact that the new president of the APA was himself bisexual. Here is a little more info.

Not really. Without proper research it would be easy to label someone (or something) that we have not studied thoroughly as something it is not.

That is why we evolve our education.

 

[fdd2blk]

Not much to say Rick. But why, how and for what reason do you think there is a "secret" or otherwise agenda. Do you think there is an ongoing clandestine conspiracy to make the whole world gay?

Why is it that you think the way you think? Sometimes folks who are so vocal have something in their past. Some may have been molested by a male figure in their youth? Who knows?

My opinion, and it is just that, is when folks hysterically define, defend, and promote fringe views that involve an irrational perceived threat or danger, then there is a serious problem with that individual. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, would be a classic example of this.

nice try.

 

[PadawanBater]

The issue is the facts you're using.

You say you have a set of facts that say homosexuality is a product of abuse or neglect - something I would wholeheartedly disagree with. I asked a direct question to you personally - do you think there are any homosexual people who come from healthy, happy homes? If you answer yes to that, then your set of "facts" becomes useless, right? If you answer no, you must defend your position with other facts, other data, or abandon it.

So which is it?

Why do you dismiss the APA's findings, because you think they have a political agenda, right? Have you considered that they actually did the research, ran tests, ran studies, and came to the unanimous conclusion that the correct move would be to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders? -even if that was the case, would you believe it, or would you just think it's still a PC move?

You say you only want the facts, but answer this honestly man, if the FACTS said "homosexuality is not a disease, it's not a mental disorder, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it" - would you accept them?

 

[fdd2blk]

"nothing wrong with it", according to who? what's wrong with it now?

 

[RickWhite]

The issue is the facts you're using.

You say you have a set of facts that say homosexuality is a product of abuse or neglect - something I would wholeheartedly disagree with. I asked a direct question to you personally - do you think there are any homosexual people who come from healthy, happy homes? If you answer yes to that, then your set of "facts" becomes useless, right? If you answer no, you must defend your position with other facts, other data, or abandon it.

So which is it?

Why do you dismiss the APA's findings, because you think they have a political agenda, right? Have you considered that they actually did the research, ran tests, ran studies, and came to the unanimous conclusion that the correct move would be to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders? -even if that was the case, would you believe it, or would you just think it's still a PC move?

You say you only want the facts, but answer this honestly man, if the FACTS said "homosexuality is not a disease, it's not a mental disorder, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it" - would you accept them?

Neither the APA or anyone else has any proof as to the cause or causes of homosexuality. They base their opinion on one thing and one thing alone. That showing homosexuality in the best possible light will, in their opinion, convince people to treat Gays better. It is an activist position according to their own admission.

Also, according to their own admission, the APA formed their opinion on the matter based not on evidence, but only on the fact that there is no proof to the contrary. In science, you do not just assume something is a fact because there is no proof to the contrary. Something becomes a relative fact when a hypothesis is formed and tested. You can't just say it is a fact that aliens created man because there is no proof they didn't.

"As the worlds leading anthropological association, we have determined that there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that human life was not the product of an alien endeavor."

See how silly that sounds in the proper prospective.

Most of what makes us who we are is our environment - especially our parents. The world is full of people with issues and barring any known genetic cause such as schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder, that is pretty much the assumed cause of most abnormalities.

Homosexuality is no different that anything else. In absence of solid evidence demonstrating a natural, genetic cause, the reasonable man must assume it is more than likely a learned behavior.

Even if a genetic link was found, it still would not mean that there are not other issues that may be associated with homosexuality. There is proof that there are other mental issues associated and the APA has yet another PC explanation blaming "pressures from society." This is another assumption for which they have no proof. It is another assumption that just so happens to buttress their other PC claim - the convenience is amazing.

My take on the issue is simple. Child abuse, neglect and bad parenting is an epidemic in America. You see this every time you see some belligerent ass hole, tough guy biker, stripper, prostitute, delinquent punk, spoiled brat, etc. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume this is the cause of Homosexuality as well. Oh, I'm sure like everyone else many Gays report a perfect home life, but if you dig deep enough you will find something that messed with their head. And, I'm going to assume that because this is likely the case, it is only prudent to suggest that there may be more to it.

In my mind, until evidence shows that this is a normal behavior I think all reasonable people must assume the most likely explanation based on what we currently know.

Another thing - even if gays can not be turned straight by therapy (or may not want to), it may still be true that therapy can make them more healthy people if they do have subconscious issues from their past. What about therapy not to make them straight, but to help them in other ways if they are identified as a troubled group. See, the APA would never consider this because it could possibly make gays look bad.

Ah, but that is the hallmark of the Left, do what looks and sounds right even when it fails. That is how the Left approaches every issue, why would they approach this one differently.

 

[RickWhite]

Excellent article listing many studies. I suggest taking the time to read the whole thing and consider the points raised.

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

 

[PadawanBater]

Neither the APA or anyone else has any proof as to the cause or causes of homosexuality. They base their opinion on one thing and one thing alone. That showing homosexuality in the best possible light will, in their opinion, convince people to treat Gays better. It is an activist position according to their own admission.

Also, according to their own admission, the APA formed their opinion on the matter based not on evidence, but only on the fact that there is no proof to the contrary. In science, you do not just assume something is a fact because there is no proof to the contrary. Something becomes a relative fact when a hypothesis is formed and tested. You can't just say it is a fact that aliens created man because there is no proof they didn't.

By your own admission, nobody has any proof to the contrary. The APA's position is it's wrong discriminate based on (homo)sexuality. You seem to be taking the position that it's OK to discriminate based on homosexuality until there is proof it's genetic. That's just the way it seems to me. Isn't the smarter, more humane and more democratic thing to do to be to treat everyone with equal rights, regardless of things we may or may not be able to change, considering things like the reasonable man scenario? Use logic and critical thinking to decide what kinds of rights should be natural and who should be stripped of rights given circumstances like people doing crazy shit, like killing other people.

"As the worlds leading anthropological association, we have determined that there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that human life was not the product of an alien endeavor."

See how silly that sounds in the proper prospective.

Most of what makes us who we are is our environment - especially our parents. The world is full of people with issues and barring any known genetic cause such as schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder, that is pretty much the assumed cause of most abnormalities.

Homosexuality is no different that anything else. In absence of solid evidence demonstrating a natural, genetic cause, the reasonable man must assume it is more than likely a learned behavior.

Even if a genetic link was found, it still would not mean that there are not other issues that may be associated with homosexuality. There is proof that there are other mental issues associated and the APA has yet another PC explanation blaming "pressures from society." This is another assumption for which they have no proof. It is another assumption that just so happens to buttress their other PC claim - the convenience is amazing.

Why are you taking the position of denying other citizens of the same country equal rights until it is proven to be genetic? And why does it matter even if it's not? Shouldn't someone have the right to choose who to have consensual sex with in a free society?

My take on the issue is simple. Child abuse, neglect and bad parenting is an epidemic in America. You see this every time you see some belligerent ass hole, tough guy biker, stripper, prostitute, delinquent punk, spoiled brat, etc. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume this is the cause of Homosexuality as well. Oh, I'm sure like everyone else many Gays report a perfect home life, but if you dig deep enough you will find something that messed with their head. And, I'm going to assume that because this is likely the case, it is only prudent to suggest that there may be more to it.

Wow man, you're doing quite a bit of assuming there for someone to be so sure of themselves...

In my mind, until evidence shows that this is a normal behavior I think all reasonable people must assume the most likely explanation based on what we currently know.

That logic is garbage. You're saying not a SINGLE homosexual person comes from a happy home with no psychological problems? - who doesn't have something wrong with them psychologically, straight or gay? That shit is retarded Rick, honestly.

 

[ChChoda]

I'm not gay, but if i was, I'd want a boyfriend with a hard-on the size of my pinkie finger... (and not because I want a matching set...)

 

[RickWhite]

By your own admission, nobody has any proof to the contrary. The APA's position is it's wrong discriminate based on (homo)sexuality. You seem to be taking the position that it's OK to discriminate based on homosexuality until there is proof it's genetic.

First, it is wrong for the APA to take that position. Science is not and must not be about making moral judgments.

I am not advocating discrimination. What I advocate is that reason and understanding prevails over mindless advocacy however well intended.

I do however see what you are trying to do. You see my arguments and you can't debate them so you are trying to refocus the conversation back to the more simplistic notions of discrimination.

But, I guess I can play along. Let us suppose that homosexuality is caused by childhood trauma. If this is true, it is also reasonable to assume there may be concomitant mental issues, right?

So, if we are dealing with a segment of the population that in which mental issues are disproportionately high, wouldn't it make sense to proceed with caution with regard to exposing children to them?

Let's look at another example. Many states now issue pistol carrying permits to people if they have never committed any of a number of crimes. Suppose two men apply for this permit - one with no record of any crime and the other with a non-violent felony. The first person is granted the permit while the second one is denied. Is that discrimination? What if there is no proof that the person denied is more likely to be dangerous? Is it reasonable to assume that a person who commits a felony should be denied on the simple probability that he is less lawful?

What if the person is denied due to history of mental disorder. Suppose the person is bi-polar and there is no proof that this makes him dangerous. Is it wrong to deny the pistol permit on the grounds that any mental disorder raises intrinsic questions about that person's suitability to carry a gun even when there is no definitive proof?

If you claim that I am discriminating based on lack of evidence with regard to Gays, would you also claim that the law discriminates with regard to felons or people with mental problems? What about people who get a DUI? A DUI disqualifies one from carrying a gun where I live. I KNOW there is no proof that a person with a DUI is more likely to commit gun violence. How is this not the same type of discrimination in your mind?