What do gays really want?

[RickWhite]

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...)

I'd want to be a lesbian.

 

[dukeofbaja]

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.

So your stance is to assume that homosexuality is a learned behavior because there is a lack of genetic evidence to the contrary? Did I get that right?

You don't seem to get how science works. We have been over this before, Rick. Your theory, that homosexuality is a learned behavior, is just a theory, as is my theory that there is some type of genetic component to homosexuality. Neither one of these theories can ever, ever, ever be proven. However, they can be disproven. For if we find even one single scrap of evidence that shows that homosexuality is indeed genetic, then that refutes the theory that homosexuality is purely a learned behavior. And guess what? Neuroscientists already have tons of evidence, as well as people who study things like biology and sexual orientation. So your theory, that homosexuality is purely a learned behavior, has already been disproven. And the empirical evidence for my theory, that there is some type of genetic component that plays some role in sexual orientation, is rapidly accumulating as neuroscience advances.

 

[dukeofbaja]

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.

Suicide
See also: Suicide
Race and age play a factor in the increased risk. The highest ratios for males are attributed to caucasians when they are in their youthhood. By the age of 25, their risk is down to less than half of what it was however black gay males risk steadily increases to 8.6 times more likely. Through a lifetime the risks are 5.7 for white and 12.8 for black gay and bisexual males. Lesbian and bisexual females have opposite effects with less attempts in youthhood when compared to heterosexual females. Through a lifetime the likelihood to attempt nearly triple the youth 1.1 ratio for caucasion females, however for black females the rate is effected very little (less than 0.1 to 0.3 difference) with heterosexual black females having a slightly higher risk throughout most of the age-based study.[4]
Gay and lesbian youth who attempt suicide are disproportionately subject to anti-gay attitudes, and have weaker skills for coping with discrimination, isolation, and loneliness,[4][27] and were more likely to experience family rejection[28] than those who do not attempt suicide

I would say societal pressures definitely have an effect. The fact that you continue to try to link homosexuality with mental illnesses over and over and over again is just pathetic, especially considering "The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal variation of human sexual orientation.[2] "

Also, what you ignore about so many of your 30-40 year old studies is that...

In the late 19th century, and throughout most of the 20th century, it was standard for psychology to view homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.[1]

To quote some old fool I know...."the convenience is amazing."

 

[ChChoda]

I'd want to be a lesbian.

Hmmmmm..... Yes, me too! We could be friends?

 

[dukeofbaja]

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.

Wait, hold on.....did he just say 'until I see evidence to the contrary' and then base his belief on a lack of evidence to the contrary? I believe someone warned us about doing that, but who? Hmmmmm, think deep....

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.

Yeah, when put in the 'perspective' (hehe, prospective) it does sound kinda silly, now don't it?

 

[laughingduck]

I'd want to be a lesbian.

I am a lesbian, trapped in a mans body. lmao

 

[dukeofbaja]

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.

Do you want me to dismantle this as well, Rick? Or do you get the point from my last few posts?

 

[shepj]

So your stance is to assume that homosexuality is a learned behavior because there is a lack of genetic evidence to the contrary? Did I get that right?

You don't seem to get how science works.

I would like to ask you a question... (a few rather, sorry)

Are you straight?

How did you "learn to be straight"?

Was a drive for intimate sexual contact an instinct you were born with? Or was it something that you gradually noticed?

Is it wrong to fall in love, and can you consider that something (that once in the process) is a "controllable" urge?

Just out of curiosity..

 

[dukeofbaja]

Am I straight - yes
How did I 'learn to be straight' - Not sure I did.
Was a drive for intimate sexual contact an instinct you were born with? Or was it something that you gradually noticed? - Again, not sure. I know when I fund a porno mag in the woods at age 6, huge boner. When I discovered porno on VHS at age 13, bigger boner. When I went to college at ASU, constant boner
Is it wrong to fall in love, and can you consider that something (that once in the process) is a "controllable" urge? - is it wrong to fall in love? I have never contemplated the question, I would say no. I don't quite get wha you are asking with part 2, but to attempt an answer, some urges can be controlled, possibly all of them. Who knows. If you phrase it a little clearer, I will attempt my best honest reply

Can't wait to see where you are going with this...

 

[shepj]

I was just curious as to what you think, I am not here to make an argument really, just see opinions without flaming anyone.

Situation 1) Learned Sexuality
guy rapes girl, girl has significant distaste to males (I just used female for the example, it could work the other way around). Essentially in this "format" if you will, someone builds sexuality how others develop prejudice/racism (or stereotypes in general. The painting of every person with the same brush).

The second situation is what I consider to, generally speaking, be the case at hand. First and foremost, everyone is born with the ability to love...
Does everyone show affection the same way? No.
Does everyone receive affection in the same way? No.

Who is to say that homosexuality is different than being heterosexual really? I mean there are no known genetic abnormalities tied with homosexuals, no alteration in chromosomal expressions. It is simply personal preference, no?

Where I was going with asking if it is wrong to fall in love.. I do not see how people can condemn another person (not pointing at you, pointing in general) for falling in love with another human being.

As to the controllable question.. I was essentially getting at is where heterosexual people can say that the "urge" (as if it is a mindset) of homosexuality could be altered simpy by resisting the feeling (if that makes sense).

I am a little sleepy.. so sorry if my wording is a little confusing. I am just interested in the discussion.

 

[dukeofbaja]

I come here for blood....your civility earns my full respect. And I learned a little too.

 

[shepj]

I come here for blood....your civility earns my full respect. And I learned a little too.

Thank you.

This is not a thread to fight in..

This is a thread to talk amongst one another. If you wish to "prove your point" and state your claim (so to speak), you have to speak in a way that does not fuel your adversary's (for a lack of a better word) fight-or-flight reflexes. When you bash and attack with abrasive words, you leave the person of opposing standpoint with no other option but to retaliate. It is a quite simply thought.. people just forget to do so (think that is).

 

[RickWhite]

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.

So your stance is to assume that homosexuality is a learned behavior because there is a lack of genetic evidence to the contrary? Did I get that right?

You don't seem to get how science works. We have been over this before, Rick. Your theory, that homosexuality is a learned behavior, is just a theory, as is my theory that there is some type of genetic component to homosexuality. Neither one of these theories can ever, ever, ever be proven. However, they can be disproven. For if we find even one single scrap of evidence that shows that homosexuality is indeed genetic, then that refutes the theory that homosexuality is purely a learned behavior. And guess what? Neuroscientists already have tons of evidence, as well as people who study things like biology and sexual orientation. So your theory, that homosexuality is purely a learned behavior, has already been disproven. And the empirical evidence for my theory, that there is some type of genetic component that plays some role in sexual orientation, is rapidly accumulating as neuroscience advances.

No, you are wrong. First, I have told you that I have a degree in biology and I have produced dozens of scientific reports.

One develops a hypothesis which is an educated guess based on some empirical observation. The hypothesis is tested and attempts are made to disprove it - that part is true.

But, where you are going wrong is in thinking that just because something can not be disproven makes it a theory. If that were the case the existence of God would be a scientific theory. Again, it is true that the scientific method involves attempts to disprove a hypothesis but only after you have suggested one that carries reasonable support in the first place.

And you are wrong about their being significant evidence of a genetic link (there may be slight evidence) - even the APA has backed away from that position. Your claim that evolutionary causes have been disproven is wholly false as is your claim that there even is a "theory" with regard to a genetic cause - there is an unsupported hypothesis at best.

 

[PVS]

They seem rather hateful and bitter, it might be all the shit packin they do.

i think they feel that they should be bestowed with the same rights as every other citizen of their respective country. i know, wtf right?

 

[RickWhite]

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.

Suicide
See also: Suicide
Race and age play a factor in the increased risk. The highest ratios for males are attributed to caucasians when they are in their youthhood. By the age of 25, their risk is down to less than half of what it was however black gay males risk steadily increases to 8.6 times more likely. Through a lifetime the risks are 5.7 for white and 12.8 for black gay and bisexual males. Lesbian and bisexual females have opposite effects with less attempts in youthhood when compared to heterosexual females. Through a lifetime the likelihood to attempt nearly triple the youth 1.1 ratio for caucasion females, however for black females the rate is effected very little (less than 0.1 to 0.3 difference) with heterosexual black females having a slightly higher risk throughout most of the age-based study.[4]
Gay and lesbian youth who attempt suicide are disproportionately subject to anti-gay attitudes, and have weaker skills for coping with discrimination, isolation, and loneliness,[4][27] and were more likely to experience family rejection[28] than those who do not attempt suicide

I would say societal pressures definitely have an effect. The fact that you continue to try to link homosexuality with mental illnesses over and over and over again is just pathetic, especially considering "The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal variation of human sexual orientation.[2] "

Also, what you ignore about so many of your 30-40 year old studies is that...

In the late 19th century, and throughout most of the 20th century, it was standard for psychology to view homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.[1]

To quote some old fool I know...."the convenience is amazing."

Did you read the so called "study" you posted? Did you notice how poor the grammar is? I can tell you from experience this would not be considered acceptable material in my undergraduate class'. What is the source?

Aside from the awful grammar, the conclusion is not one than can be drawn from the statistics. It is nothing more than the non-sequiter opinion of another gay activist.

The second paragraph you posted has already been addressed.


"The article first appeared in Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, edited by H. Tristam Engelhardt Jr., and Arthur Caplan, Cambridge U. Press, 1987.

Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.
His paper describes psychiatry's attempt to adopt a new "adaptational" perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory--particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation--claiming that if we do not readily see "distress, disability and disadvantage" in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered. On first consideration, such a theory sounds plausible. However we see its startling consequences when we apply it to a condition such as pedophilia. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile "normal"? As Dr. Bieber argues in this article, psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness--that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively--"may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order."


Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is a mental issue was no abandon, just revised.

"In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance."

A proposal About Homosexuality and the APA Nomenclature: Homosexuality as One Form of Sexual
Behavior and Sexual Orientation Disturbance as a Psychiatric Disorder​

by Robert L. Spitzer, M.D

Controversy rages as to whether homosexuality should be regarded as a pathological deviation of normal sexual
development or as a normal variant of the human potential for sexual response. Recently, this controversy has
focused on the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-II)
where homosexuality is listed as an official diagnosis in the section on Sexual deviations.
The proponents of the view that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality argue for the elimination of
any reference to homosexuality in a manual of psychiatric disorders because it is scientifically incorrect, encourages
an adversary relationship between psychiatry and the homosexual community, and is misused by some people
outside of our profession who wish to deny civil rights to homosexuals. Those who argue that homosexuality is a
pathological disturbance in sexual development assert that to remove homosexuality from the nomenclature would
be to give official sanction to this form of deviant sexual development, would be a cowardly act of succumbing to
the pressure of a small but vocal band of activist homosexuals who defensively attempt to prove that they are not
sick, and would tend to discourage homosexuals from seeking much-needed treatment.
http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf


See the part that is underlined - that is called "political activism" and it has no place in science. All this does is undermines a true understanding of issues. Nowhere in any other medical publication or community aside from the one we are discussing is politics allowed to influence the classification of a behavior or the way research is conducted. The social sciences have for decades been imbued with examples of pressure from the Left to produce studies that back Left wing agenda and suppress those that do not.

It is not the role of scientists to manufacture facts in order to achieve social engineering. When science and politics co-mingle, neither is credible.​

​

​

​

​

 

[CrackerJax]

Surely it is a mutation ... all things are. We are a product of mutation.

The problem lies in whether the mutation should be tolerated.

It should. It's not contagious and ppl who do have the mutation can lead very happy and fufilling lives....if they are allowed to.

 

[RickWhite]

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.

Wait, hold on.....did he just say 'until I see evidence to the contrary' and then base his belief on a lack of evidence to the contrary? I believe someone warned us about doing that, but who? Hmmmmm, think deep....

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.

Yeah, when put in the 'perspective' (hehe, prospective) it does sound kinda silly, now don't it?

Again I have to show you where your logic fails. What I am doing above is properly assigning the burden of proof. This is in stark contrast to the stuff you have posted from the APA in which the burden of proof is put on the wrong party. This is also known as appeal to ignorance.

Here is a link to help you understand:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Most mental issues that people have are a product of environment. There is debate over this in the old nature vs nurture debate but I think most would agree that the weight of the evidence has always favored environment with regard to most things. Plus, there is the indisputable fact that homosexuality is a deviant behavior that is contrary to reproduction and promulgation of the species.

Therefore, in the absence of proof of a genetic anomaly, the proper assumption is environment.

Unlike your appeal to ignorance, I am placing the burden of proof where it belongs.

 

[RickWhite]

Just curious:

How many people would let their 13 year old son go on a weekend camping trip with two gay men as their chaperons?


Of those who answer yes, would you also let your blossoming 13 year old daughter do likewise if the two men were straight? What if you found out they would be sharing tents?

 

[PVS]

Just curious:

How many people would let their 13 year old son go on a weekend camping trip with two gay men as their chaperons?

as any responsible parent i would insist on meeting and discussing with any adult(s) who would take responsibility for the care of my child.

of course you since are trying to equate homosexuality and pedophelia, all you read is "i dont care if my son gets cornholed in his tent by a raving pedo-monster".

Of those who answer yes, would you also let your blossoming 13 year old daughter do likewise if the two men were straight?

if you are suggesting a boy & girl camp scenario then i would be more concerned about how my blossoming and overly hormonal daughter conducts herself.

What if you found out they would be sharing tents?

loaded and nonexistant scenario for the win.

 

[fdd2blk]

answer skirted.