• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

What Is Your Stance On Homosexuality?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Sometimes you have to wonder if some pro-homosexual people can read.

That wasn't necessary.

They say I said things I never said. For example, I never said sexual orientations are choices. Sexual BEHAVIORS are.

Okay, fair enough.

Also, those of you who say sexual aberrations are subjective, are matters of opinion---I suppose you're going to say that the statement "necrophilia is a sexual aberration" is just an opinion, not fact.

I suppose we're going to say beastiality is okay, and pedophilia is okay, and, and...no. We don't advocate necrophilia. We don't advocate pedophilia. We don't advocate beastiality. It's a strawman. We're talking about homosexuality which is not interchangable with just any sexuality. Stick to the point.

Being gay is being different than the majority. We know that. But difference is not wrong in this day and age. There are so many denominations of faith, sexuality, so many buisinesses and enterprises, that everything is largely objective and scientific. The only thing that makes an aberration in today's definition of the word is something that causes death, suffering, or terror.

Deny the facts all you want. Misinterpret me all you want. You just look foolish and destroy your credibility.

Credibility with who...you? You've got like ten people here who don't care whether they look credible to you or not. And we've given you fact after fact that you ignore and then respond with three quotes that are decades old. Don't delude yourself.

Do you think it's possible that, living with gay people and accepting them instead of holding them at distance like something corrupted causes us to understand more about what they're like? We know and read all your "facts", we just simply don't agree. They are not applicable to reality.

Too, for those who want to see part of a Wall Street Journal page that contains Mark Dennis's comment about the "gay agenda" go here http://home60515.com/Dennis.jpg.

Basically Mark Dennis is a gay man who swears that he'll never actually commit a gay act. In those days I don't doubt that a group of homosexuals were harsh and threatening in their language, being the target of frequent homicides. I also won't discount the possibility that this is propaganda designed to sabotage or discredit the initial gay movement in the sixties and seventies. Either way, this document is from forty or fifty years ago...not really usable in a debate.
 
Last edited:

wordy936

Well-Known Member
SunnyC,

I wasn't the one who made a general statement that sexual aberrations are matters of opinion. I was just responding to it.

Also, the quote about the "gay agenda" is not "decades old." It's from 1993. Another quote I used is from 2000. Why do you think I wonder if those who disagree with me can read? (Whether that comment is necessary or not, as you put it.)

Fact is, speaking objectively, we are all born imperfect, we all have immoral desires due to our animal natures. We can choose to get depressed about it, or we can just accept the reality of our imperfect natures and suppress or sublimate our immoral desires. Homosexuals may be burdened with desires straights don't have, but that doesn't mean homosexuals have to get depressed.

And another fact is, speaking objectively, homosexuality is a disorder. I, for one, will not put down anyone for how they are born. But what behaviors people voluntarily choose to engage in---that's fair game for criticism.
 
A disorder in what sense?

I'm inclined to trust authorities such as the APA on their statements that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Good luck trying to disprove that objectively.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Also, the quote about the "gay agenda" is not "decades old." It's from 1993. Another quote I used is from 2000. Why do you think I wonder if those who disagree with me can read? (Whether that comment is necessary or not, as you put it.)

You're right. I did not correctly reference your bibliography. The one quote that we (Fused, J.T., randomspot etc) felt had any relevance was the 1993 Wall Street Journal quote. The other two quotes just say what everyone knows: some gay people are afraid of the opposite gender, and the fact that they are gay essentially means that they reject intimacy with the opposite sex. We all know that. That's why they're gay. They like the same gender, not the opposite one. That's being gay.

The 1993 Wall Street Journal quote seems like it's from a list of responses to an article that isn't on this page. Dennis is not a professional, he's a reader of the Wall Street Journal. He's writing his opinion in a letter. That's not a valid confession to report. Moreover, even if it isn't decades old...I can vouch for the fact that documents over a decade old are generally not usable for educational or debate purposes. My anthropology class is wary of letting us use materials that are more than five years old.

Just curious, to what grade am I speaking? I am a college university Sophomore.

Fact is, speaking objectively, we are all born imperfect, we all have immoral desires due to our animal natures. We can choose to get depressed about it, or we can just accept the reality of our imperfect natures and suppress or sublimate our immoral desires. Homosexuals may be burdened with desires straights don't have, but that doesn't mean homosexuals have to get depressed.

I'm not going to try arguing with this, cause you've gone on a tangeant. None of us are burdened or depressed with the people we are. We accept our natural urges and then move on with our lives...so I don't frankly know why you're saying this. Well, I have a feeling you're trying to create a false conflict.

And another fact is, speaking objectively, homosexuality is a disorder.

Excuse me, no it is not! http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html That's the American Psychological Organization! Or are you going to try and disprove that with another article that's ten years old?

You can disagree with the APA if you want. You can alledge that the gay agenda took it over since it started plotting to get rid of all the breeders in 1993. But then, what you say ceases to be authority, ceases to be fact, because this is the national organization that establishes the facts.

And you know what, homosexuality is not a disorder. OCD is a disorder. Schitzophrenia is a disorder. Spina bifida is a disorder - I know about disorders, I have a few of them. I can't walk. I can't get through a day with peace and confidence. On the other hand, a healthy homosexual can be a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, they can love, they can learn, they can teach, they can even join churches that have the guts to accept them - and how they have sex has absolutely no bearing on that.

And it affronts me - heavily - to think you equate homosexuality, which doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't interfere with anything, with hearing voices in your head, or having involuntary muscle spasms and the like.

That's not speaking objectively.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Also, the quote about the "gay agenda" is not "decades old." It's from 1993. Another quote I used is from 2000. Why do you think I wonder if those who disagree with me can read? (Whether that comment is necessary or not, as you put it.)

The irony is that you haven't read the responses. No one cares how old the quote from the WSJ is. The fact is it isn't an article or op-ed that was fact checked, edited, etc... It offers zero evidence of some sort of "gay agenda." It's some random person writing to the Letters of the Editor section. Just because I write something does not automatically make it true.

And another fact is, speaking objectively, homosexuality is a disorder. I, for one, will not put down anyone for how they are born. But what behaviors people voluntarily choose to engage in---that's fair game for criticism.

Fun fact. Just because someone puts "speaking objectively" in a sentence does not automatically make it true. But hey, you say it's a fact, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead and prove it.
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
Also, the quote about the "gay agenda" is not "decades old." It's from 1993. Another quote I used is from 2000. Why do you think I wonder if those who disagree with me can read? (Whether that comment is necessary or not, as you put it.)

Okay, so 16 years old, much better. We weren't talking about the one from 2000, because you're really just saying things we already know. "GAYS DUN LIKE WOMEN" well of course not, that's kinda why they're gay.

And you still haven't covered the points we brought up about Mr. Dennis' quote. Like why we're supposed to believe this one guy writing to an editorial 16 years ago when he says there's some massive ******** conspiracy that all gays are part of. If I write to my local newspaper today and talk about how all the Alaskans are planning some sort of conspiracy to take over the Canadian government and "prove" it by saying I'm an Alaskan, does that make it true?

Fact is, speaking objectively, we are all born imperfect, we all have immoral desires due to our animal natures. We can choose to get depressed about it, or we can just accept the reality of our imperfect natures and suppress or sublimate our immoral desires.

Alternatively, they could say screw you and do what they want, considering it's their life and not yours.
Alternatively alternatively, they could actually be careful about getting and avoiding STDs while still having gay sex, something you seem to think is utterly impossible for gays.

Homosexuals may be burdened with desires straights don't have, but that doesn't mean homosexuals have to get depressed.

Try being in their situation - where the Morality Patrol™ tells them they're unnatural abominations, they're going to burn in hell, prevent them from the rights straights get without question, telling them that their lifestyle's unhealthy, and banning them from acting on their natural urges because some others in their situation weren't careful - and then see how you feel when the guys doing all this to you basically tell you to suck it up and stop being depressed.

I really doubt you'd think it's a walk in the park.

And another fact is, speaking objectively, homosexuality is a disorder.

You have said this over and over again, but the only thing you've said to support your case is that "well the APA used to consider it a disorder". Hmm, wonder why that might have changed as our knowledge of science and the human body improved.
 
Last edited:

wordy936

Well-Known Member
Some of you open-minded people might want to think about this info from the pro-homosexual Psychology Today of last year: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

Two logical conclusions from the above: 1) It is possible to enjoy homosexual sex even if one doesn't have homosexual genes; and 2) it is possible to enjoy heterosexual sex even if one doesn't have any heterosexual genes.

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.
 

lugia*master

Cheese XD
Alternatively, they could say screw you and do what they want, considering it's their life and not yours.
Alternatively alternatively, they could actually be careful about getting and avoiding STDs while still having gay sex, something you seem to think is utterly impossible for gays.

Correct. I mean, when you think about it, there's more chance of getting HIV when having straight sex, than when having homosexual intercourse. I mean, there are the three causes: Sexual / anal intercourse; breastfeeding; oral sex. 1, you can really only have anal intercourse with a homosexual person, because they do not have both sexual orophis' present in the anatomy of a woman. Second, a man does not have breasts, so either way, that cuts out the breast feeding option. I'm not going to delve into deeper detail, because that'll just get inappropriate. ;)

EDIT:
Some of you open-minded people might want to think about this info from the pro-homosexual Psychology Today of last year: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

Two logical conclusions from the above: 1) It is possible to enjoy homosexual sex even if one doesn't have homosexual genes; and 2) it is possible to enjoy heterosexual sex even if one doesn't have any heterosexual genes.

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.

I am quite aware of that; I am a psychology graduate after all. Despite what some people might say (¬¬). And anyway, you're absolutely right. Although, it has to be said, I've never actually read psychology today. I'm not really one for educational magazines ;)
 
Last edited:

wordy936

Well-Known Member
You pro-homosexual people are in the odd position of using groups (e.g., the APAs) that once considered homosexuality to be a disorder to support your view that it isn't a disorder. A pro-homosexual psychiatrist named Ronald Bayer has written a book titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, which explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of mental disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science. Both APAs have little credibility nowadays.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Some of you open-minded people might want to think about this info from the pro-homosexual Psychology Today of last year: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

And this does what to support your arguments of a "gay agenda" or other ridiculous claims you've made?

Two logical conclusions from the above: 1) It is possible to enjoy homosexual sex even if one doesn't have homosexual genes; and 2) it is possible to enjoy heterosexual sex even if one doesn't have any heterosexual genes.

I don't know what the point of this is either. Are you just deflecting because you can't possibly support your gay-agenda crazy conspiracy theory?

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.

You make it sound like it's as simple as choosing decaf or regular.

Prove it. What people have changed, what did they do to change?

You pro-homosexual

You accuse everyone here of some big bias and put yourself on the pedastal as being "objective" when you're anything but. You've yet to make a substantial response to anyone's criticisms, and instead deflect to other issues. This is Debate, not Twitter or Livejournal.
 

shadowkiller

DARKSIDE-welcome
I'm not bothered if someones gay or not.Its not up to me want someone does in there spare time and if they're okay with it then so am I.
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
Also, the quote about the "gay agenda" is not "decades old." It's from 1993. Another quote I used is from 2000. Why do you think I wonder if those who disagree with me can read? (Whether that comment is necessary or not, as you put it.)

The article you linked to had no date that I could locate. Do not equalize that with "you pro-homos can't read!"

Also, if it is from 1993, why would the author reference Ronald Reagan, who left presidency 4 years earlier. Why not refrence the current president (George H. W. Bush) at least alongside Reagan?

Fact is, speaking objectively, we are all born imperfect, we all have immoral desires due to our animal natures.

Fact is, it is illogical to say nature is immoral. It's like saying dying is unnatural.

Also, as I've said before, morality is a matter of opinion, not fact.

We can choose to get depressed about it, or we can just accept the reality of our imperfect natures and suppress or sublimate our immoral desires. Homosexuals may be burdened with desires straights don't have, but that doesn't mean homosexuals have to get depressed.

I like how you assume it is a burden that can be suppressed, because this manner of thinking can lead to serious emotional and psychological issues in homosexuals. Nothing in nature is perfect, but nothing is imperfect. Both of these words (perfect and imperfect) suggest that change is possible when the reality is, nature just is.

And another fact is, speaking objectively, homosexuality is a disorder. I, for one, will not put down anyone for how they are born. But what behaviors people voluntarily choose to engage in---that's fair game for criticism.

But emotions, sexual attractions and romantic desires that people have no choice of experiencing - are those fair game for criticism? Also, how is it a disorder? The term describes that the person is somehow incapable of something because of the disorder.

And before you even start to entertain "reproduction", gays can reproduce, but they have sexual attractions that don't lead to "traditional" reproduction. Also, heterosexuals choose not to have children.

Also, what type of disorder is it? Medically speaking, there are five types of disorder classifications - functional, mental, physical, genetic and emotional & behavioral disorders. Since all of these things can be affected by a homosexual orientation, we first need to classify what type of disorder it is before thinking of a "cure" for it. Take a guess at which it is, because no matter what you choose, you'll be wrong.

Some of you open-minded people might want to think about this info from the pro-homosexual Psychology Today of last year: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

Oh my god! No GENES that produce homosexuality? Too bad I don't beleive in a true genetic basis. Even if I did, this wouldn't concern me much.

Two logical conclusions from the above: 1) It is possible to enjoy homosexual sex even if one doesn't have homosexual genes; and 2) it is possible to enjoy heterosexual sex even if one doesn't have any heterosexual genes.

Nowhere in that passage could you even infer those conclusions, let alone infer them logically. Would you enjoy gay sex? Because I wouldn't enjoy staright sex, that's for sure.

As I said anyways, there are several theories that don't concern genes.

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.

Propaganda? Like what the last two lines of this quote are? Homosexuals are, contrary to your beliefs, locked into homosexuality. No one can change a sexual orientation. They can repress it, they can deny it all they want, but never has there been a successful change from homsoexuality to heterosexuality.

If I recall correctly, a worker at a gay conversion center was found flirting with men at a gay bar. Yes, he tried so hard to change.

You pro-homosexual people are in the odd position of using groups (e.g., the APAs) that once considered homosexuality to be a disorder to support your view that it isn't a disorder.

How is it odd? That was then, this is now. What is hard to understand about that? You are using materials that support your opinion, and we are using current material that supports ours.

A pro-homosexual psychiatrist named Ronald Bayer has written a book titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, which explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of mental disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science. Both APAs have little credibility nowadays.

That's funny because it talks about how one activist created a shadow of doubt on a stance that homosexuality was a disease since the author coudl not explain his reasoning.

The riots were caused because homosexual protesters were not allowed to protest. Isn't that a right we have?

So I guess blacks got rights through power politics and intimidation, right?

Please. Who are we debating here, christianU2ber?
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
How on earth do you even need science to remove it as a disorder?

Science wasn't even used to add it to begin with!
 
Last edited:
How on earth do you even need science to remove it as a disorder?

Science wasn't even used to add it to begin with!

Touché!


Also, am I seriously witnessing "open-minded" being used as a pejorative?

wordy396 said:
You pro-homosexual people are in the odd position of using groups (e.g., the APAs) that once considered homosexuality to be a disorder to support your view that it isn't a disorder.
Hey, I guess you've got a point there. We can't let these professional groups of scholars give us the impression that advancements in science let us question our preconceived notions, or anything.
 
Last edited:

Lucas666

Dragon Trainer
And another fact is, speaking objectively, homosexuality is a disorder.

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.

You are contradicting yourself... if homosexuality is a disorder and can then be assosiated with disorders like skitzophrenia, then that would mean if a homosexual did 'change' they would just be a homosexual who has sex with women. Your argument won't stand ground.
 

Rabidmunchlax

Well-Known Member
Some of you open-minded people might want to think about this info from the pro-homosexual Psychology Today of last year: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

Two logical conclusions from the above: 1) It is possible to enjoy homosexual sex even if one doesn't have homosexual genes; and 2) it is possible to enjoy heterosexual sex even if one doesn't have any heterosexual genes.

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.


For me, what makes this paragraph, look interesting is the lagre amount of elipses, giving me the impression that you have hacked and sawed the bits that further your case.

Also, they never say there is no homosexual gene, just that they haven't identified one.

You say that gay people have no right to be depressed. This makes no sense as they aren't allowed to marry, have fundamentalist screaming at them that they will go to hell, and they have people who are nothing to do with them telling them, don't be how you are
 

Rabidmunchlax

Well-Known Member
Some of you open-minded people might want to think about this info from the pro-homosexual Psychology Today of last year: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).

Two logical conclusions from the above: 1) It is possible to enjoy homosexual sex even if one doesn't have homosexual genes; and 2) it is possible to enjoy heterosexual sex even if one doesn't have any heterosexual genes.

Contrary to homosexual propaganda, homosexuals aren't locked into homosexuality. They can change. Many have.


For me, what makes this paragraph, look interesting is the lagre amount of elipses, giving me the impression that you have hacked and sawed the bits that further your case.

Also, they never say there is no homosexual gene, just that they haven't identified one.

You say that gay people have no right to be depressed. This makes no sense as they aren't allowed to marry, have fundamentalist screaming at them that they will go to hell, and they have people who are nothing to do with them telling them, don't be how you are
 

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
You are contradicting yourself... if homosexuality is a disorder and can then be assosiated with disorders like skitzophrenia, then that would mean if a homosexual did 'change' they would just be a homosexual who has sex with women. Your argument won't stand ground.

I have to agree. First of all, all disorders have a genetic basis, yet the article you have used says that genes play an insignificant role in sexual orientation. So your disorder theory already falls short.

Next, mental and emotional & behaviorla disorders have no cure. They can be treated and supressed (which when done to a disorder would create relief overall) but there is a chance of a relapse and therefore cannot be removed or changed.

Physical, genetic and functional disorders also have a genetic basis. These cannot be forcefully (surgically) changed or else you compromise a person's entire identity. The only idea we have of changing genes is with certain foods, but this has yet to be proven. Not to mention, some of the test done so far have shown that switching off certain genes turns on other ones, some that can cause other health issues such as higher stress levels, other disorders or things as serious as cancer.
 
Last edited:

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
I'd like to see an excerpt from this Robert Bayer book he mentioned. If he's actually claiming the gays scared the APA into not listing homosexuality as a disorder, he damn well better back it up.

Lucas also brought up a good point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top