What is "Wrong" with Homosexuality?

[Grey Wind]

And on that subject, if you can't realize that what you're putting forth is just that, your opinion, if you somehow believe that every belief you have is the set in stone Truth, if you can't see that there are other opinions out there other than your own, if you can't understand how you could ever be wrong, how are you any different than some Bible Thumping Hill-Billy from the darkest recesses of Tennessee?

Because, unlike the Bible thumping Hillbilly, randomspot is using actual research, and not an old book.

The Atheists and Perverts Association

wait, it's the American Psychological Association?

Geez! We've been arguing about two completely different groups!

See, this is why no one likes you.

 

[AquaRegisteel]

What is the point of being sarcastic in a debate mattj? Someone wishes to know something and you go ahead and troll them. How clever.

There is nothing wrong with gay/bi/lesbian humans, if they wish to be gay/bi/lesbian, then so be it. The Bible shouldn't have a say in this anyway.

 

[Sadib]

Can we just steer away from the APA? Going to the APA isn't debating, it's admitting you cannot win without using a liberal source that cannot be disproved.

Quit trolling. What makes the APA liberal, and why would that even matter? You can disprove the APA with facts. You just can't disprove it with the Bible.

 

[mattj]

[img139]http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac290/mattj_pokemon/cantwinemall.jpg[/img139]

lol

See, this is why no one likes you.

Awwwww... you made me cry :,(

Yeah, except you know the APA is a scientific organization that uses things like the scientific method, and peer review. Whereas the Bible was written under the pretense that a few dozen men heard a man in the sky talk to them.

Sure! There's no controversy with the APA! Everyone everywhere automatically accepts everything they say! No one of any authority ever disagrees with them!

This would have been stinging insult if it weren't for the fact that I made a legitimate point. Funny how you tend to avoid those in your rebuttals.

There was nothing to rebutt. You just raged about stuff that has already been addressed in this thread. Take a chill pill. Or read a few pages back. Either way.

This is a fact bring up different cultures all you want, (and there is no culture around today that allows for the legal marriage of an adult to a child).
And yes, I can say what I'm saying is the truth and not opinion, because what I'm saying is tested, and verified to be true.

Lol. Yeah. Sure. "Bring up any evidence you want, what I believe is a fact and you are wrong." Well, it was nice talking to you.

 

[AquaRegisteel]

Uhh...Kazekage never said there wasn't controversy in the APA or whatever it is in America. Therefore, your point for that was nothing

 

[sanjay120]

lol why is what the apa thinks even an issue

if you think homosexuality is wrong then it falls on you to prove why

(here i'll save you some time: you can't)

 

[CSolarstorm]

Mattj, as you would normally point out, no source is perfectly trustworthy, and there's a controversy about everything. That was a suspciously specific defense on your part. The reason you give for rejecting the APA, because it's partisan, because it's fallible, because it is not unanimously agreed upon, applies to every other source we can provide here, especially the Bible, which comes from the father of all biased, partisan sources and is embroiled in controversy. So what, should we stop giving sources to avoid this problem of using tainted evidence? Or would you like us all to halt the debate after realizing all of our sources are equal and subjective and there is no hope of any conclusion ever being made?

 

[Sadib]

lolAwwwww... you made me cry :,(Sure! There's no controversy with the APA! Everyone everywhere automatically accepts everything they say! No one of any authority ever disagrees with them!There was nothing to rebutt. You just raged about stuff that has already been addressed in this thread. Take a chill pill. Or read a few pages back. Either way.Lol. Yeah. Sure. "Bring up any evidence you want, what I believe is a fact and you are wrong." Well, it was nice talking to you.

Something tells me that we're going to see that picture a lot more in the future. You must have worked really hard in making it. People don't find your humor amusing, because this is a debate. You are trying to make jokes to distract others. I personally hate when people say "lol," because I doubt they are actually laughing out loud.

 

[Shiny_Wooper]

there is nothing wrong with gay people. just look whats on the inside. I have a gay cousin you can tell he is gay but he is really nice.They are no different then any other people.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Mattj, as you would normally point out, no source is perfectly trustworthy, and there's a controversy about everything. That was a suspciously specific defense on your part. The reason you give for rejecting the APA, because it's partisan, because it's fallible, because it is not unanimously agreed upon, applies to every other source we can provide here, especially the Bible, which comes from the father of all biased, partisan sources and is embroiled in controversy. So what, should we stop giving sources to avoid this problem of using tainted evidence? Or would you like us all to halt the debate after realizing all of our sources are equal and subjective and there is no hope of any conclusion ever being made?

That's not really a valid critique. The very first result for "APA Controversy" on Google is a Wikipedia page that discusses several major controversies about the APA. Though only a few of them relate to homosexuality (and those sections about homosexuality seem somewhat deficient in sources), it looks like the controversies surrounding the APA are worse than those surrounding most other scientific bodies. Far worse.

It isn't so much that all sources are biased, as that as an ostensibly scientific body, the APA should undoubtedly be above some of the stuff they appear to have done (i.e., taking bribes, and, if some sources are to be belived, being pressured to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders).

EDIT: As I point out in this later post, the above comments are about a Wikipedia page regarding the American Psychiatry Association, which is not the APA that has been cited often in this debate. I apologize for any confusion this post may have caused.


And I'm just going to be sure: What do you mean by saying the Bible "comes from the father of all biased, partisan sources"?

 

[Grey Wind]

Oh look, a title change.

I really think people should get back to debating about actual things relating to gay people, instead of whether or not the APA is valid :/

 

[Aegon]

What's with the title change? Last time I checked, we weren't debating gay marriage.

 

[Sadib]

What's with the title change? Last time I checked, we weren't debating gay marriage.

I was going to say the same thing, but then I read your post. I guess the mod who changed the title, didn't read the thread at all.

 

[CSolarstorm]

That's not really a valid critique. The very first result for "APA Controversy" on Google is a Wikipedia page that discusses several major controversies about the APA. Though only a few of them relate to homosexuality (and those sections about homosexuality seem somewhat deficient in sources), it looks like the controversies surrounding the APA are worse than those surrounding most other scientific bodies. Far worse.

The first link there refers to the American Psychiatric Association, not the American Psychological Association. And, provide another body that is less corrupted and we can compare them. It might also be nice if you wrote about an exact scandal instead of just reminding us there have been scandals.

It isn't so much that all sources are biased, as that as an ostensibly scientific body, the APA should undoubtedly be above some of the stuff they appear to have done (i.e., taking bribes, and, if some sources are to be belived, being pressured to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders).

Tell me about these bribes. Also, how is being pressured to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders a scandal of any sort? LGBT groups can campaign for them to investigate further and then come to conclusions that they wouldn't have if they weren't nudged in that direction. What we need is evidence that they struck it from the list blindly without due scientific consideration.

And I'm just going to be sure: What do you mean by saying the Bible "comes from the father of all biased, partisan sources"?

Religion and God, from an outside and inside standpoint, are just as biased and partisan as any source of gay advocacy that you can accuse of just wanting to rationalize their urges as being right.

 

[Sadib]

I demand the thread title changer to show themselves if they dare!

 

[Josef Stylin]

And if the title is being changed, I suggest the same for that OP. They don't match.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

NOTE: The APA Controversies in that Wikipedia article were actually about the American Psychiatric Association, not the American Psychological Association, which is the APA we've been discussing for quite some time now. From that Wikipedia page, I found out that there are several organizations which could be abbreviated "APA," which is slightly frustrating.

This means my previous comments about an "APA controversy" are not relevant to the discussion of the other APA. (EDIT: SunnyC ninja'd me regarding that point!)


However, doing a bit of digging, I found out something important. Some very important people from the APA (the psychology one) have spoken out against the what they feel are major problems in the organizations. One in particular is Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the APA (the psychology APA, not any of the others). I looked up the contents page of a book he coauthored, which shows the telling title of the first chapter: "Psychology's Surrender to Political Correctness."

He has also spoken at some of the meetings of the organization called NARTH (National Organization for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). This organization believes that people have the right to choose whether or not they want therapy for homosexual attraction. Now, here is a link to a NARTH interview with this past APA president, of which I will quote one question and answer:

Q: You have been critical of the psychological community for its part in distorting research on sexual orientation. Can you describe why you are critical of the APA?

Dr. C: First, let me say that I have been a lifelong champion of civil rights, including lesbian and gay rights. I appointed as president (1979) the APA's first Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues, which eventually became an APA division. In that era the issue was a person's right to choose a gay life style, whereas now an individual's choice not to be gay is called into question because the leadership of the APA seems to have concluded that all homosexuality is hard-wired and same-sex attraction is unchangeable.

My experience has demonstrated that there are as many different kinds of homosexuals as there are heterosexuals. Relegating all same sex-attraction as an unchangeable--an oppressed group akin to African-Americans and other minorities--distorts reality. And past attempts to make sexual reorientation therapy "unethical" violates patient choice and makes the APA the de facto determiner of therapeutic goals.

 

[Sadib]

I'm confused. Are we supposed to talk about gay marriage now?

 

[SwiftSoul]

The thread name change is possibly to get us away from the debating of whether or not homosexuality is a choice for most. Kind of like if Person A says it is, Person B is gay and knows it's not, Person A reiterates a slightly different way that it is, Person B keeps saying it's not, and who better than someone gay to know that, anyway? Person C trolls, and no one listens to anyone else's points, no matter where they fall on the scale of validity or not.

Let's do this:
Citing social (and not religious) points, even if homosexuality was a choice, what purpose does denying us the equality of marriage serve, anyway? Is there a valid, nonreligious reason to deny marriage equality?

I don't want to hear tradition, because Greeks and Romans accepted homosexuality as norm. Same-sex, well, sex, was not untraditional or in general seen as bad by the public as a whole.

I don't want to hear "sactity of marriage", either, because, by that logic, divorce should be illegal.

I don't want to hear fallacies like the slippery slope.

I don't want ad hominem, because that answers nothing.

I don't want to hear that it changes marriage for everyone, because most would agree that interracial marriage, which changed the way marriage was seen, is a very positive advancement for society and marriage, as a whole.

Lastly, the children argument holds no water. I have yet to see a study that shows that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight, nuclear households, not to mention single-parent families. And if marriage was just for children, that means contraception should be illegal, and if a married couple does not have one or more children in their care, a divorce is legally mandated.

 

[Alleviate]

I'm pretty sure the thread name was changed because the moderator involved wasn't keeping up with the thread and thought it had devolved into marriage discussion by now and mockingly changed the title to what most other gay threads become.

Also while I hope this thread stays away from the subject of marriage; interracial marriages have a higher failure rate. Just letting you know Alphapup.