What Is Your Stance On Homosexuality?

[Fused]

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.

I've read excerpts from the book, and it pretty much began of course with the Stonewall Riots, which lead to a movement, which questioned authority who couldn't back up their claims, and then protesting and social pressure followed in suit. It was the same as all other social movements in history.

The end of the book quotes several psychiatrists saying how important social views and values and normality are when dealing with mental disorders, especially when putting them into context with society. It doesn't ever say that the gay movement intimidated them. He completely misconstrued the book.

You can read some of it here

 

[CSolarstorm]

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.

Well besides the fact that you used a very vague fact to come to a Farfetch'd conclusion...doesn't even phase me. I don't frankly care. It's not wrong so they don't have to change if they don't want.

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. (...) Both APAs have little credibility nowadays.

Why don't we cite the White House to argue the point that black men can't vote? After all, once the U.S. government did not see black people as full humans. You know how they changed that idea? Intimidation. It's called the Civil War.

(But black men =/= homosexuals!) The laws and the discrimination they have faced are comparable. Only black men needed an entire civil war that slaughtered neighborhoods in the south, to legitimize their being and their lifestyle, and you complain about gays simply going on parades.

It's something called time. Get over it. Good grief. Citing the APA is the most valid defense in a psychological debate and your opinion doesn't make it less credible.

Either way...you're not playing fair anymore. It's impossible for us to bend to you by dropping all mentions of the fact that the APA is kind toward homosexuals and cares about people's individual choices; it's impossible for us to forget that Google, most of the banks, New York Times, Democrats and some Republicans campaigned against Prop 8, and it's impossible for us to suddenly become dimmer and forget that homosexuals don't harm anyone with their lifestyles. So with this mountain of logical, imperical, and anecdotal evidence, we're not going to drop everything and cave the debate to you because you "speak objectively". Does not work that way. On the other hand, maybe you could gear up and learn how to use the quote button.

 

[GhostAnime]

For people who think gays don't deserved to be depressed:

* The average high school student hears anti-gay epithets 25 times a day; 97% of the time, teachers fail to act.
* Homosexuals are 3 times more likely to dropout.
* 18% of Homosexuals are physically targeted to the point of professional medical help.
* Homosexuals are 3 times more likely to develop substance abuse.
* In Philadelphia, one third of BOTH lesbians and gays report abuse from family members.
* 26% of gay adolescent males leave home due to sexual orientation.
* 42% of homeless youth identify as homosexuals.
* Over 30% of all teenage suicides involve a homosexual.
* Only 24% of schools teach tolerance for homosexuals.

(apologies for a lack of source but I just got all of these down from a poster I saw in college. You could probably google some of these.)

 

[Slash4life]

Those are pretty interesting, Ghost.

An aquaintence of mine once made the comment in Math that some guy probably fought like a fag. It pissed me off, because I could probably have kicked his ass. That poser talks big, and I'd like to see him get his ass kicked, especially by a gay guy.

 

[wordy936]

There are so many irrational ideas and questions I can respond to here, but it would just take too much time. Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you pro-homosexual people would think about a transsexual, a person whose mind (say female) is in a mismatched body (say male). What would you say that is---a problem, disorder, what?

Whatever you would call it, a homosexual mind in a body clearly made for heterosexual sex is similar. It's a mismatch, problem, disorder, whatever. And that, as they say, is that. Deny all you want.

 

[Slash4life]

this is not the debate on whether transgendereds belong in LGBT. That debate actually exists in the debate forums. I know because I started it. Go there with your point.

 

[ChedWick]

There are so many irrational ideas and questions I can respond to here, but it would just take too much time. Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you pro-homosexual people would think about a transsexual, a person whose mind (say female) is in a mismatched body (say male). What would you say that is---a problem, disorder, what?

Whatever you would call it, a homosexual mind in a body clearly made for heterosexual sex is similar. It's a mismatch, problem, disorder, whatever. And that, as they say, is that. Deny all you want.

You should really go away and do some more thinking. It would probably be for the best. Oh and while your at it, eat some mothballs because you are clearly far more irrational than most of the others here.


Transgenderism is "a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to diverge from the normative gender roles." Key word there being normative.

There is no real normal. Normal is what society labels as such and there for opinionated not problematic.

I see your comparison and and can understand how you have made it but what you fail to realize is even though it is understandable its quite ridiculous.

Homosexuality is not a disorder, it is not a problem, it is a simple case of attraction. It's seen as a problem because society has labeled it queer. Anything in this society that is different is always bad amirite....

 

[Deku_Link]

There are so many irrational ideas and questions I can respond to here, but it would just take too much time. Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you pro-homosexual people would think about a transsexual, a person whose mind (say female) is in a mismatched body (say male). What would you say that is---a problem, disorder, what?

Whatever you would call it, a homosexual mind in a body clearly made for heterosexual sex is similar. It's a mismatch, problem, disorder, whatever. And that, as they say, is that. Deny all you want.

Considering how gender identity and sexual orientation aren't even linked in the first place, I'm going to first have ask what the relevance of this question is.

Being transgendered is when your brain has a blueprint for your body that you are aware of, and your body does not fit it.

Homosexuality isn't comparable to this definition, because the homosexual's brain is not telling them that they should be heterosexual.

The only exception to this would be when a person is attracted to their own biological sex but identifies as the opposite gender, in which case the drive to be heterosexual is merely a technicality based on being born the wrong sex, so to speak, where the change is to be made in your own physical sex rather than that which you are attracted to -- which still wouldn't render it as comparable to being transgendered, considering how the opposite could easily take place (being attracted to the opposite physical sex while also identifying as the opposite gender).

 

[Penguinist Trainer]

I personally have nothing against homosexuality. I'm a straight guy who has someone I care about. If 2 guys or 2 girls have someone they share strong feelings for, then why should their reproductive organs matter? If gay people want to be married, then all the power to them. Marriage is a serious commitment. Regardless of what the religious debate is at the moment, if 2 people are willing to make that leap for better or worse, I say let them.
My personal hero is gay, and I could never turn my back on the man who has bettered my life. As long as he is happy, I would gladly support him no matter who he took for a partner.
It is sad that this is a big societal issue when I think our country has more pressing issues. People love who they love. You can't change what your heart knows it wants.

 

[randomspot555]

There are so many irrational ideas and questions I can respond to here, but it would just take too much time.

Well, honestly, I didn't expect you to make a substantial post anyway. If you can take 5 minutes to make a post in a failed attempt to change the subject, then you could use that time also to respond to a post.

 

[J.T.]

There are so many irrational ideas and questions I can respond to here, but it would just take too much time. Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you pro-homosexual people would think about a transsexual, a person whose mind (say female) is in a mismatched body (say male). What would you say that is---a problem, disorder, what?

A disorder. However, homosexuals don't have any desire to be the opposite gender (or the ones I've talked to, anyway).

Whatever you would call it, a homosexual mind in a body clearly made for heterosexual sex is similar.

If the body is oh so clearly made for heterosexual intercourse, why does the male anus have orgasmic capacity? Why does the penis fit in the male anus? Answer these and maybe I'll believe you.

It's a mismatch, problem, disorder, whatever. And that, as they say, is that. Deny all you want.

I'm starting to get sick of the "I'm right, you're wrong, end of" attitude you have going here.

We have disputed damn near every point you have brought up. You very rarely try to defend your own points or counter ours, you just throw out new ones mixed in with statements about us being in denial, etc. Your arguments are flimsy at best and outright wrong at worst. You do not have the right to go around acting like you've won while ignoring our points in order to say "no, I'm right, deal with it".

 

[CSolarstorm]

Mismatch =/= Problem, Disorder

My purple turtleneck doesn't match my red fedora. That's a mismatch. But it's not a crime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25964356/

That's a Labrador that nurses tiger cubs! They don't match.

But the zoo is calling it a miracle. A litter of tiger cubs, without a mother, was saved by a dog. It's not supposed to be like that in nature. But it IS that way and it's a miracle because the tiger cubs get to survive!

It's sort of how a lesbian couple can raise a perfectly heterosexual man. Just because it doesn't match, and you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...you mark people like my parents as abherrant and you say they have a disorder...but in doing that you put down something for no logical reason except for the fact that it doesn't match to you.

I have lesbian parents. They're a bleeping miracle, like that dog. I'm handicapped and they've saved my life over, and over, and when I stay in the hospital, my birthmother helps other kids when the doctors prescribe them the wrong medications. When my career aunt and uncle leave my cousins to fail in school and go through being teenagers in a drug-ridden neighborhood, my lesbian mom is there to tutor them and chase off the neighbor kids who would influence them in bad ways.

Frankly I think you owe homosexuals a little more respect. Have you ever thought that God does what he can, when he needs to? (I am a little religious myself.)

 

[Manaic]

2 pence

It's amazing how us humans have this obsession with categorisation!

It's this or it's this, otherwise i don't like it.
If you bred a lion and a tiger, people would want to know is a bit lion with stripes or a tiger without.

Personally i've always thought that the many different parts of our brain that constitute our "personality" are sorta spectrumised. That is that our preferences are an amalgamation of each of these different things.

People tend to associate sexuality with just 2 things usually, sexual pleasure and love, so who someone gets turned on by and who they fall in love with. However there's a multitude of things that could be classified as the "masculine" or "feminine" roles. I know of couples, heterosexual for the record, where the male does the cooking and cleaning, and the woman does accounts. Because that's just how things happen. I know of women who can fix their own cars because they have that "tinkering" passion that tends to get associated with males. Things such as neatness or kindness are found in both males and females, whereas give it a few hundred years ago and they'd be considered womens things. Their are sporty competitive women out there who are excellent business people and very successful, yet who love cooking cakes and biscuits with their children. Their are masculine heterosexual men out there, who love to immerse themselves in poetry with a glass of wine. This is the 21st century, the vboundaries are coming down.

In this day and age genders have become blurred. So people aren't black and white. I don't understand how people only pick up on one part of it all. One of my best friends from secondary school (GB equivalent of high school Ages 11-16), was bullied for being gay. He was effeminate and partook in musical productions, yet was heterosexual. Myself on the otherhand was averagely masculine and played rugby and did metalwork, yet from 13 onwards realised i liked guys. I had moments (well months) in frustration over the past few years where i'd become suicidal, i'd look enviously at a man and woman cuddling on a park bench and think how i could never have that subtle public affection display. i used to cry about how i'd never be able to stand in a hospital with my wife and hold my son or daughter. so personally i dont feel i had a choice in the matter of being gay. coming from a Catholic family in the Gaeltacht of Ireland, it took me about 3 or 4 years to even admit my homosexuality.

In my 20s now, i still have a great dislike for those labelled as "queens". I also don't seem to understand how many gay men fear the naked female body. I see no reason for men of any sexuality to overdramatically retch and make vomiting sounds. My personal stance as a gay guy myself is that it is natural for 2 males or 2 females to have intimate relations and fall deeply in love. They have gay penguins at the Zoological Society London (London Zoo basically), gay swans, many reports of gay canines and felines from around the world both domestic, feral and wild.
i dont like the idea of this so called gay lifestyle though. The Kylie/Madonna disco bunnies, the promiscuity, i didnt spend 7 years learning to accept that i like men, only to have them dress up as women. thats just my tastes though. Hope my 2 pence has done its bit

 

[Fused]

There are so many irrational ideas and questions I can respond to here, but it would just take too much time.

Irrational? You're misinterpreting books, throwing around quotes that don't serve you in anyway, using incredibly evil and biased websites and you call us irrational? The only reason you won't respond to specific ideas or posts is because you know that you've dug yourself far too deep in a grave and you assume that calling us irrational will lift you out.

Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you pro-homosexual people would think about a transsexual, a person whose mind (say female) is in a mismatched body (say male). What would you say that is---a problem, disorder, what?

Transsexualism has more to do with the way a person identifies him/herself, not what they actually are. It's not a disorder, it's just an identity. I identify myself as a nice person, but it doesn't mean I am.

Whatever you would call it, a homosexual mind in a body clearly made for heterosexual sex is similar. It's a mismatch, problem, disorder, whatever. And that, as they say, is that. Deny all you want.

You assume that people's only purpose in life is to reproduce when, in the long run, why is reproduction necessary? And if it is necessary, why are there heterosexuals who choose not to or cannot have kids of their own?

Deny all you want that you're arguments are bull, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't.

Unless you actually make a logical post, I'm done with you. I've spent too much time on your unsupported or poorly supported claims and not to mention there are five other people here arguing with you as well, and you won't make a good post simply because you ****ed yourself over, ultimately dragging this debate down into a gutter.

I would strongly advise all other debaters to ignore wordy as well as it has been proven several times that he has nothing logical or rational to say.

 

[Skull-Kid]

Irrational? You're misinterpreting books, throwing around quotes that don't serve you in anyway, using incredibly evil and biased websites and you call us irrational? The only reason you won't respond to specific ideas or posts is because you know that you've dug yourself far too deep in a grave and you assume that calling us irrational will lift you out.



Transsexualism has more to do with the way a person identifies him/herself, not what they actually are. It's not a disorder, it's just an identity. I identify myself as a nice person, but it doesn't mean I am.



You assume that people's only purpose in life is to reproduce when, in the long run, why is reproduction necessary? And if it is necessary, why are there heterosexuals who choose not to or cannot have kids of their own?

Deny all you want that you're arguments are bull, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't.

Unless you actually make a logical post, I'm done with you. I've spent too much time on your unsupported or poorly supported claims and not to mention there are five other people here arguing with you as well, and you won't make a good post simply because you ****ed yourself over, ultimately dragging this debate down into a gutter.

I would strongly advise all other debaters to ignore wordy as well as it has been proven several times that he has nothing logical or rational to say.

I think it's safe to say that no matter what ridiculous arguement wordy comes up with(who only seems interested in this thread) that it is not going to stand.

He's just throwing out statistics that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. The reason I did not say anythnig is that quite frankly I am not as smart as most of you people and that you are much better debaters than me.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with homosexuality no matter what anyone says or argues.

 

[XxSilverxX]

Well my moto is,
''You like what you like!''

 

[wordy936]

Those who think homosexuals haven't hurt anybody might want to talk to the families of the thousands of hemophiliacs who have died because they got AIDS-infected blood donated by homosexuals. Because of that disaster anyone engaging in homosexual sex is barred from donating blood.

Some inconvenient history: Before AIDS was called AIDS it was called GRID. GRID stands for Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. AIDS was first called GRID because the disease was only found in homosexuals in the early stage of the epidemic. But homosexuals spread it to bisexuals who spread it to heterosexuals. Now, innocent babies get AIDS "thanks" in part to unsafe sex by homosexuals.

But of course those pro-homosexual people out there will go through intellectual gymnastics to try to explain all this away. Homosexuals owe this country a huge debt because of all the unsafe sex they engage in and all the money and lives lost. They owe us a big apology.

 

[ChedWick]

Aids is not exclusive to homosexuals nor are safe sex practices. Nice try though. Again, go eat some mothballs.

 

[GhostAnime]

Some inconvenient history: Before AIDS was called AIDS it was called GRID. GRID stands for Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. AIDS was first called GRID because the disease was only found in homosexuals in the early stage of the epidemic. But homosexuals spread it to bisexuals who spread it to heterosexuals. Now, innocent babies get AIDS "thanks" in part to unsafe sex by homosexuals.

What is the point of telling us what ignorant people of the past thought?

Guess what else they used to think? Whites > all.

Regardless, if you want to scientifically prove that AIDS was caused by homosexuality, I'd like to see you try.. scientifically. Not, "it used to be called this."

 

[Mawile412]

can anyone tell me how AIDS actually started?