Alfie's Home- The anti-gay childrens book, now with molestation and slurs!

[Alonzo]

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook1.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook2.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook3.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook4.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook5.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook6.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook7.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook8.jpg

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2007/08/cohenbook9.jpg

I was going to comment on the book, but you guys already have seen enough of my sarcasm and everyone knows my opinion. So I thought hearing from satisfied parents, teachers and counselors might provide a better perspective into anti-gay thinking than I ever could:

FIVE STARS: "Alfie's Home" a true perspective of the homosexual struggle
This book is a long awaited answer to such books as Heather Has Two Mommies. This book paints a true and accurate picture of the struggle of a child with family issues. Written by someone who has "been there" and knows the power of healing, this book is a MUST read for the person who wants all the information that is available. I strongly reccomend this book.

FIVE STARS: At long last....A Biblical view
I found "Alfie's Home" an excellent book and a wonderful resorce for anyone who deals with children. I believe it accurately shows some of the roots of homosexuality and how there can be healing for those in this painful situation. As someone who has experienced that healing myself, I rejoice to see the voice of the ex-gay in a book for families. Thank you, Richard Cohen.

FOUR STARS: Interesting and informative
I found the book very interesting and well written for a difficult subject. Knowing the book to be autobiographical and written by a therapist adds much to the credibility of reparative therapy. One of the few books to address the issue honestly . Though too simplistic in some areas, I feel it is important for children - or anyone - uncomfortable with their homosexuality but are told, "too bad. deal with it" to know there are viable alternative options. Hope to see more books on this issue now the APA has changed its view.

FIVE STARS: Hopeful and helpful
This is a wonderful and rare book that offers encouragement and hope to young boys who may be experiencing unwanted sexual attraction to other boys or men. It is also helpful for any boy who may have been molested. I have been a teacher for 35 yrs and also do private counseling. This is the only book on this subject that I am aware of to date that doesnt tell a child that he must be gay and just has to accept it.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0963705806/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/105-7834704-4067638?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Here's a CNN special on the author Richard Cohen. And, shocker, he's an "ex-gay":

HQH6mrOvSGI

If you don't want to watch the whole thing, skip to 3:55 and watch him caressing his male patients and slamming tennis rackets while condemning his mommy.

[GhostintheMachine]

wow....I can't believe that. that's really all I have to say about that.

[preservanation]

Notice how the inappropriate touching, in the book, was turned around on the child.
Uncle cries and all is forgiven.
This whole book is shocking.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Who in the *#$@ would buy that for their child?!?!?!?!??!?!??!

This is beyond disturbing.

[NortheastCynic]

Wow.

Friggin...wow.

-NC

[Deadshot]

Reading the reviews kinda scares me. Forget the homophobia involved and think about the Child Molestation. Uncle cries and asks forgiveness?

Nah, Uncle cries and is prosecuted and sent away. Mommy and Daddy love son no matter what, gay or not!

[Osborn F. Enready]

What kind if dysfunctional parent or family would buy this for their child?!?!?

[Deadshot]

Go to the Amazon website and look the book up to see who might be reading it.

I say, "might be", because I think many of the reviews are probably fake or used to fan the flames for others.

[PostmodernProphet]

in the interest of discussion, apart from the lenient treatment of molestation, what specifically do you find offensive about the book?.....

I see a councilor telling a kid that he isn't necessarily gay because his friends call him names.....that he isn't necessarily gay because he was molested by a man.....that he isn't necessarily gay because he had an unhappy childhood......I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that these aren't the messages you find offensive......please let me know which messages are......

[NortheastCynic]

Because the book will most likely be aimed at children who have never before been introduced with the idea of gay people; it's likely that it will give a child the impression that gay people are just sexually confused, psychologically damaged individuals who were likely molested.

Not a great message, nor is it an accurate one.

-NC

[PostmodernProphet]

you don't think gay people are sexually confused?.....

[NortheastCynic]

All of them, no. Some of them, perhaps. A majority? I seriously doubt it.

I think most of them have pretty much made up their minds...They're sexually attracted to men; no confusion there.

-NC

[PostmodernProphet]

since men are not the logical target of sexual attraction for men, I would say it signals a significant confusion.....

[NortheastCynic]

If what you say is true [about it being 'illogical'] then at worst they're illogical. Being illogical is not necessarily a sign of confusion. Love, being an emotion, frequently isn't logical.

That said, what makes it illogical? It doesn't provide for reproduction?

-NC

[PostmodernProphet]

there are many things that occur in the natural world that still give evidence of confusion.....

http://frogstar.com/pics/humping1/images/medium_1-1-Humping%20Mouse.jpg


It doesn't provide for reproduction?

why yes....a sexual attraction that doesn't lead to reproduction would be evidence of confusion......

[micfranklin]

That book has to be photoshopped.

[Elrathin]

why yes....a sexual attraction that doesn't lead to reproduction would be evidence of confusion......

So a person that is sexually attracted to a person that is unable to have children is confused?

[PostmodernProphet]

So a person that is sexually attracted to a person that is unable to have children is confused?

that depends.....if it is physically obvious that the object of attraction is unable to reproduce, it ought not trigger the psychological and biological events that result in sexual attraction.....

however, there may be many causes of infertility that are not physically evident.....

this is an example of what I am talking about....

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19930301-000030.html

The Biology of Attraction
Much of courtship and mating is choreographed by nature. In fact, nature designed men and women to work together.

[Alonzo]

That book has to be photoshopped.

The book is for sale on amazon, it's not photoshopped.

you don't think gay people are sexually confused?.....

Some of them are, like Richard Cohen and his other ex-gay buddies.

I see a councilor telling a kid that he isn't necessarily gay because his friends call him names.....that he isn't necessarily gay because he was molested by a man.....that he isn't necessarily gay because he had an unhappy childhood......I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that these aren't the messages you find offensive......please let me know which messages are......

Maybe that gay people are that way because they were molested? Maybe that being gay is your parents fault? A lot of parents have been devastated by that one, and a lot of people have been devastated, and even imprisoned, when well meaning therapists "recover" traumatic events that never happened, such as molestation.

Then there's the part where talking to a pedophile is the best solution, and the part where they have anti-gay slurs and treat them as almost accepted ways to talk to gays, and things that may even encourage them to change.

Then there's the hypocrisy of the whole thing, all the anti-gay people say "Don't talk about sex or orientation around kids!" And then they go and make a book showing a guy fucking a kid.

And the author isn't some fringe, self denying wacko, this is a mainstream, self denying wacko:

Richard Cohen (born 1952) is a writer and reparative therapist[1], assisting men and women[2] with unwanted same-sex attractions.[1] He has been called one of America's leading practitioners of conversion therapy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Cohen

He really, really likes touching his patients:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Cohensholding.jpg

He's the gay guy holding the other gay guy.

however, there may be many causes of infertility that are not physically evident.....

A bit irrelevant to the subject, no?

[PostmodernProphet]

Maybe that gay people are that way because they were molested? Maybe that being gay is your parents fault? A lot of parents have been devastated by that one, and a lot of people have been devastated, and even imprisoned, when well meaning therapists "recover" traumatic events that never happened, such as molestation.

Then there's the part where talking to a pedophile is the best solution, and the part where they have anti-gay slurs and treat them as almost accepted ways to talk to gays, and things that may even encourage them to change.

/shrugs....if any of that were in the book you might be right.....but it isn't.....on what page does it say people are gay because they are molested......the book says he ISN'T gay because he was molested....I will let you respond to that one before I go on to the next....

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote:
however, there may be many causes of infertility that are not physically evident.....
A bit irrelevant to the subject, no?sorry if you didn't like it....it was directly responsive to the question asked.....perhaps you should ask El if his question was irrelevant.....

[Alonzo]

/shrugs....if any of that were in the book you might be right.....but it isn't.....on what page does it say people are gay because they are molested......the book says he ISN'T gay because he was molested....I will let you respond to that one before I go on to the next....

"He said I wasn't gay. I just missed my dad's love and was taught wrong things by my uncle".- page 13

[Alonzo]

sorry if you didn't like it....it was directly responsive to the question asked.....perhaps you should ask El if his question was irrelevant.....

I thought you were saying infertility could lead to homosexuality. If not then I withdraw my statement.

[potter]

Who in the *#$@ would buy that for their child?!?!?!?!??!?!??!

This is beyond disturbing.


Thank you for that..... I thought exactly the same.

What ever happened to "Horton hears a Who?"

[PostmodernProphet]

"He said I wasn't gay. I just missed my dad's love and was taught wrong things by my uncle".- page 13

and how do you interpret that statement as "he said I was gay because I was molested".....when I look at that sentence the first thing that comes to my attention is "He said I WASN'T gay"....

[Alonzo]

Because ex-gay's don't believe that people are truly "gay". That's the point of therapy they advocate.

[PostmodernProphet]

I thought you were saying infertility could lead to homosexuality. If not then I withdraw my statement.

I understood El's question to be specifically about a heterosexual who was incapable of having children, trying thus to show that my statement about homosexuality was false.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Because ex-gay's don't believe that people are truly "gay". That's the point of therapy they advocate.

then obviously your contention about the author is wrong....he wouldn't be making the claim that people are gay because they are molested since he "wouldn't believe that people are truly gay"......

but anyway, I think it's cute the way you criticize him for saying something, when what he said was the exact opposite of what you criticize him for saying.....

[Elrathin]

I understood El's question to be specifically about a heterosexual who was incapable of having children, trying thus to show that my statement about homosexuality was false.....

And succeeding in showing your statement was false I might add lol.

[Alonzo]

then obviously your contention about the author is wrong....he wouldn't be making the claim that people are gay because they are molested since he "wouldn't believe that people are truly gay"......

but anyway, I think it's cute the way you criticize him for saying something, when what he said was the exact opposite of what you criticize him for saying.....

Post, here's what the editor to another one of his books wrote:

In this self-help book, which contains a foreword by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, ex-gay therapist Cohen (the author of Alfie's Home, a children's book about a sexually abused boy) writes for gays and lesbians who want to transition to heterosexuality. His comprehensive, well-written, well-organized, and heavily referenced guide views homosexuality as a symptom of disrupted affiliation with the same-sex parent and incomplete feelings of maleness/femaleness, building on the psychological theories of Joseph Nicolosi and Elizabeth Moberly.

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Out-Straight-Understanding-Homosexuality/dp/1886939470

[PostmodernProphet]

And succeeding in showing your statement was false I might add lol.

you will have to explain that rather odd conclusion, since it isn't logical on it's face.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Post, here's what the editor to another one of his books wrote:



so basically, instead of dealing with what this book says, you choose to take something else he has said and use it to translate what it says into it's exact opposite.....clever......:nana:

[Alonzo]

post, I took what the book said, which you couldn't seem to understand despite it being clear to me and apparently many then, and then took another book of his that showed his view was what I said it was.

[Alonzo]

Here's Richard Cohen's, the author, interview with the Daily Show:

qOXTrU5MMZk

[GhostintheMachine]

haha i love it

[PostmodernProphet]

post, I took what the book said, which you couldn't seem to understand despite it being clear to me and apparently many then, and then took another book of his that showed his view was what I said it was.

/shrugs.....you took what what the book said and turned it into what you apparently wanted it to have said.....

[Alonzo]

/shrugs.....you took what what the book said and turned it into what you apparently wanted it to have said.....

Interesting that what I say the book is arguing is the same thing the author argues in other books, and is consistent with his view of homosexuality.

[PostmodernProphet]

Interesting that what I say the book is arguing is the same thing the author argues in other books, and is consistent with his view of homosexuality.

/shrugs.....well, unless the books readers also read those other books, there is no reason for them to reach the same conclusion you have....

[Alonzo]

Seems like other posters here did.

But, tell me, would you buy this book for your kid?

[PostmodernProphet]

Seems like other posters here did.

But, tell me, would you buy this book for your kid?

no, but if he were struggling with sexual identity issues I would make sure he got counseling that addressed the same issues.....

I believe that homosexuality is caused by genetic misfunction, just as alcoholism is.....but I also believe it logical that there are some who believe they are homosexuals who are not.....these may be because their peers treated them as homosexuals when they were young.....these may be because they were molested.....these may be people who had emotional problems that they misinterpreted.....and there may be other reasons....

I think it likely that those who consider themselves "cured" homosexuals were never in fact homosexuals....

[Buck Laser]

no, but if he were struggling with sexual identity issues I would make sure he got counseling that addressed the same issues.....

I believe that homosexuality is caused by genetic misfunction, just as alcoholism is.....but I also believe it logical that there are some who believe they are homosexuals who are not.....these may be because their peers treated them as homosexuals when they were young.....these may be because they were molested.....these may be people who had emotional problems that they misinterpreted.....and there may be other reasons....

I think it likely that those who consider themselves "cured" homosexuals were never in fact homosexuals....
"Genetic misfunction" is not a term I've ever heard before. Is it some kind of attempt to call homosexuality a birth defect? Or perhaps you're trying to reconcile the biological evidence about homosexuality and what you think your faith requires.

The curious thing about this "genetic misfunction" is that it occurs throughout the animal kingdom, according to most researchers who deal with such things. Does that mean it's built into creation? I didn't think Satan ever concerned himself with anything but human behavior. Did you ever know a "cured" homosexual?

Finally, is there some subtle distinction between "misfunction," a word I don't know, and malfunction?

[GhostintheMachine]

no, but if he were struggling with sexual identity issues I would make sure he got counseling that addressed the same issues.....

I believe that homosexuality is caused by genetic misfunction, just as alcoholism is.....but I also believe it logical that there are some who believe they are homosexuals who are not.....these may be because their peers treated them as homosexuals when they were young.....these may be because they were molested.....these may be people who had emotional problems that they misinterpreted.....and there may be other reasons....

Do you have scientific evidence to back up that statement? Seems to me that you making that statement solely based on your own opinion, because numerous psychological studies have shown that homosexuality is perfectly natural. The APA is in accordance with this. There have been no conclusive arguments that actually examine the evidence to show that homosexuality is a "misfunction" as you put it. Also just look at history, homosexuality has been prevalent for ages.

I think it likely that those who consider themselves "cured" homosexuals were never in fact homosexuals....

Homosexuality means that a person has a long term attraction to men, not just brief experimentation. So they may not have been homosexual. But they may still be and are completely denying their nature. I don't think anybody is qualified to make that assumption for about another person.

[PostmodernProphet]

The curious thing about this "genetic misfunction" is that it occurs throughout the animal kingdom/shrugs....so does cancer.....what is your point.....

Finally, is there some subtle distinction between "misfunction," a word I don't know, and malfunction?

you can use any word you want, so long as the final understanding is something which isn't functioning properly.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you have scientific evidence to back up that statement? Seems to me that you making that statement solely based on your own opinion, because numerous psychological studies have shown that homosexuality is perfectly natural. The APA is in accordance with this. There have been no conclusive arguments that actually examine the evidence to show that homosexuality is a "misfunction" as you put it. Also just look at history, homosexuality has been prevalent for ages.

are you taking the position that homosexuality is not biologically caused?.....if so, I believe you are going against a substantially majority opinion, including that of the gay community.....

whether something is "natural" is irrelevant.....albinos are "natural", cancer cells are "natural", alcoholism is "natural"....however, they are not examples of nature operating properly.....

[PostmodernProphet]

So they may not have been homosexual. But they may still be and are completely denying their nature.

???...if they aren't homosexual, how would concluding they are not homosexual be denying their nature?......

I don't think anybody is qualified to make that assumption for about another person.

if homosexuality has a biological cause, unless that cause is altered it is illogical to say someone is "cured" of homosexuality.....

[GhostintheMachine]

are you taking the position that homosexuality is not biologically caused?.....if so, I believe you are going against a substantially majority opinion, including that of the gay community.....

whether something is "natural" is irrelevant.....albinos are "natural", cancer cells are "natural", alcoholism is "natural"....however, they are not examples of nature operating properly.....

No I know that evidence shows that homosexuality is a biological-social phenomenon, and I agree. I was criticizing your implication that it is not "nature operating properly." Who are you to judge?

[GhostintheMachine]

PostmodernProphet;193749]???...if they aren't homosexual, how would concluding they are not homosexual be denying their nature?......

You didn't read the statement. I said that "But they may still be homesexual and are completely denying their nature." I still stand by my original statement that I don't think you are qualified to make that assumption about someone else.

if homosexuality has a biological cause, unless that cause is altered it is illogical to say someone is "cured" of homosexuality.....

Yes, I don't think that people can be "cured" of homosexuality. Like I said earlier, it is going against one's nature to try and change their sexuality. I think perhaps an important thing to consider is that sexuality should be measured on a continuum rather than an "all or none" format that says you are completely gay or completely straight.

[PostmodernProphet]

No I know that evidence shows that homosexuality is a biological-social phenomenon, and I agree. I was criticizing your implication that it is not "nature operating properly." Who are you to judge?

anyone with any common sense would come that that conclusion.....is an albino the result of nature operating properly or is it an aberration from normality?......

[PostmodernProphet]

I still stand by my original statement that I don't think you are qualified to make that assumption about someone else.

I have made no assumptions about anyone....it is up to them if they believe they are homosexuals or not.....but if they say they were and no longer are, it would be illogical....more logically, they were incorrect in believing they were.....

[Alonzo]

anyone with any common sense would come that that conclusion.....is an albino the result of nature operating properly or is it an aberration from normality?......

What is "normal"? If you mean statistically normal then yes, both are "abnormal" but so is a genius.

If you mean social and reproductive norms then yes, both are abnormal, but so is being ugly or flat chested. As being ugly or flat chested decreases the chance of finding a mate.

But homosexuality, particularly in social species, may increase the risk of others, who are genetically close to you, surviving. So while your particular genes are less likely to be passed on, your families may be more likely to be passed on, and so are genes that you possess or that are close to them.

[PostmodernProphet]

What is "normal"? If you mean statistically normal then yes, both are "abnormal" but so is a genius.

If you mean social and reproductive norms then yes, both are abnormal, but so is being ugly or flat chested. As being ugly or flat chested decreases the chance of finding a mate.

But homosexuality, particularly in social species, may increase the risk of others, who are genetically close to you, surviving. So while your particular genes are less likely to be passed on, your families may be more likely to be passed on, and so are genes that you possess or that are close to them.

quite frankly, I can't imagine a sense in which homosexuality WOULD be considered normal....other than "socially acceptable"......which would have nothing at all to do with biology......

[GhostintheMachine]

anyone with any common sense would come that that conclusion.....is an albino the result of nature operating properly or is it an aberration from normality?......

I think that making that sort of qualititative judgement is irrelevant when trying to make a case about homosexuality. The argument that homosexuality is an "aberration from normality" is extremely biased and bigoted in my opinion. First from a biological standpoint it assumes that the only goal of a relationship is reproduction. It remains obvious as to why that statement is flawed. So what exactly is at stake if you feel homosexuality is an aberration from normality? Because I can show you plenty of studies that show the negative impacts of remaining in the closet.

[GhostintheMachine]

I have made no assumptions about anyone....it is up to them if they believe they are homosexuals or not.....but if they say they were and no longer are, it would be illogical....more logically, they were incorrect in believing they were.....

Earlier you implied that homosexuals should take steps to overcome their "identity issues," based upon your belief that it is a dysfunction...

[GhostintheMachine]

quite frankly, I can't imagine a sense in which homosexuality WOULD be considered normal....other than "socially acceptable"......which would have nothing at all to do with biology......

Perhaps this is due to your own bias? Maybe you should talk to someone who is homosexual and ask if they feel their experience is "normal"

[PostmodernProphet]

What is "normal"? If you mean statistically normal then yes, both are "abnormal" but so is a genius.

If you mean social and reproductive norms then yes, both are abnormal, but so is being ugly or flat chested. As being ugly or flat chested decreases the chance of finding a mate.

But homosexuality, particularly in social species, may increase the risk of others, who are genetically close to you, surviving. So while your particular genes are less likely to be passed on, your families may be more likely to be passed on, and so are genes that you possess or that are close to them.

quite frankly, I can't imagine a sense in which homosexuality WOULD be considered normal....

What is "normal"? If you mean statistically normal then yes, both are "abnormal" but so is a genius.

it is statistically predictable that a certain percentage of a population are going to be geniuses, that a certain percentage will be alcoholics, albinos, homosexuals, etc......

but an albino is someone who's body responds incorrectly to light, an alcoholic is someone who's body responds incorrectly to alcohol, a homosexual is someone who's body responds incorrectly to sexual stimulus......a genius is not someone who's body responds incorrectly to something......

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting that Alonzo finds fault with someone deciding they aren't gay and going straight.

And calling a criticism of pedophilia "anti-gay"...

I have seen the stand on the issues, and I find it reprehensible....

[Alonzo]

quite frankly, I can't imagine a sense in which homosexuality WOULD be considered normal....other than "socially acceptable"......which would have nothing at all to do with biology......

Would homosexuals forcing themselves to act heterosexually be maladaptive? In other words, would it be harmful to themselves and harmful to society? Yes to themselves. Society is a bit tricker, but if you consider the effects of a loveless, sexless marriage can have on their partner, and the potential of them devastating them by no longer wanting to live a lie, it's dangerous to society as well.

So is homosexuality, and living as homosexuals, maladaptive? No, especially in an overpopulated world and a world filled with kids needing adoption.

Defining normal is not a silly question. I remember an abnormal psych course where they dedicated the entire first chapter solely to defining what "normal" is, and that definition was by no means universally agreed upon in psychology, just probably the most accepted one.


but an albino is someone who's body responds incorrectly to light, an alcoholic is someone who's body responds incorrectly to alcohol, a homosexual is someone who's body responds incorrectly to sexual stimulus......a genius is not someone who's body responds incorrectly to something......

And reducing the reproduction rate, while aiding those who have already reproduced, is harmful how? Many theorize that the assistance they provide to others is one of the reasons that homosexuality is prevelant to various degrees in animal populations, and that it is why homosexuality is relatively common in humans. Homosexual animals, and human animals, do take in babies that aren't there own, and they help gather resources for the group, while not producing additional children that need to consume it.

The first two examples you used result in harm to the person, but homosexual attraction does not result in harm to the person.

[PostmodernProphet]

First from a biological standpoint it assumes that the only goal of a relationship is reproduction.no, but as shown in the study I quoted earlier sexual attraction is biologically and psychologically related to reproduction.....YOUR position implies that the only goal of relationship is sexual attraction....

Because I can show you plenty of studies that show the negative impacts of remaining in the closet.

if a person has an abnormally functioning body it is likely there will negative impacts of both remaining in and leaving the closet....

[PostmodernProphet]

Earlier you implied that homosexuals should take steps to overcome their "identity issues," based upon your belief that it is a dysfunction...

?????....no I didn't....I said if my son was having trouble with sexual identity issues I would want him to have counseling to determine if he WAS a homosexual or if there were other causes for what he was experiencing.....

[Alonzo]

Interesting that Alonzo finds fault with someone deciding they aren't gay and going straight.

Because those who were actually gay, meaning attracted to men and not women as Richard Cohen was, are fooling themselves. No reputable psychological evidence suggests that homosexuality is treatable.

And calling a criticism of pedophilia "anti-gay"...

They treat acting pedophiles lightly, and say everything is fine after a good talking too.

They blame pedophilia and poor parent relationships as causes of homosexuality. Not only is that harmful to gays themselves, it's devastating to parents who are essentially accused of being bad parents because their son or daughter is gay.

I have seen the stand on the issues, and I find it reprehensible....

Do you mean "his stand" and not "the stand"? If so, I don't think I'd be too comfortable agreeing with you on most issues, that is unless you were the one who changed :D.

[PostmodernProphet]

Perhaps this is due to your own bias?

/shrugs.....and perhaps your position that it is normal is based on your own.....the difference is, my position is scientifically obvious.....

[GhostintheMachine]

PostmodernProphet;193776]no, but as shown in the study I quoted earlier sexual attraction is biologically and psychologically related to reproduction.....YOUR position implies that the only goal of relationship is sexual attraction....

I didn't imply that the only goal of relationship is sexual attraction, or I surely didn't intend to.:unreal:

if a person has an abnormally functioning body it is likely there will negative impacts of both remaining in and leaving the closet...

I think the only negative impact of coming closet is experiencing prejudice towards your orientation. But it still is much better than the negative impact of remaining in..

the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 (it had been listed as a sociopathic personality disorder). There is strong consensus that homosexuality is healthy.

Same-sex couples are just as committed in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, say researchers who have studied the quality of adult relationships and healthy development. http://www.apa.org/releases/satisfaction0108.html

[GhostintheMachine]

/shrugs.....and perhaps your position that it is normal is based on your own.....the difference is, my position is scientifically obvious.....

Based on the assumption that reproduction is the only goal of a relationship? Please explain...

I still think the argument needs to get away from what is normal and what is healthy. Like Zo said earlier, genius's aren't normal..does that make them bad?

[Alonzo]

no, but as shown in the study I quoted earlier sexual attraction is biologically and psychologically related to reproduction.....YOUR position implies that the only goal of relationship is sexual attraction....

And who denied sexual attraction is related to reproduction? The point is that it is not necessarily beneficial to a species to have every member a part of the mating population, and that's why homosexuality may proliferate.

if a person has an abnormally functioning body it is likely there will negative impacts of both remaining in and leaving the closet....

Of which are? Anal sex is a riskier form of sex due to the tendency for tissue to break and bleed. That's true in gay men, and that's true when heterosexuals do it.

Many gay men do not have anal sex, and I saw statistics once done on gay men in long term relationships and it said, of those men, more of them did not engage in anal sex than those who did.

Anal sex is the risk factor, and both gay and straight people participate in it. Outside of that, what risk is there? Not engaging in gay sex and relationships, for gays and lesbians, would be psychologically dangerous to their well being, and psychological stress can have physical side effects in terms of health. What risk is there for those who do choose to engage in homosexual sex then, as opposed to those who don't?

[Buck Laser]

It looks pretty evident to me that PMP is trying to find a way to get around biological science and still find a way to assert that homosexuality is a "genetic misfunction." I think he is driven by his belief that God (or "nature") would not tolerate something PMP finds distasteful. Perhaps this is why people become fundamentalists in the sense that "God said it, I believe it, and that's THAT." It's OK to believe that, as far as I'm concerned, but to try to interpret science to accord with religious beliefs pretty much always lands someone in irrationality.

[GhostintheMachine]

Yes, thank you. I think that the science based argument solely relies on the fact that members of the same sex can't reproduce...completely ignoring the psychological and emotional evidence that indicates homosexuality is healthy. Prejudice is what causes the negative psychological impacts..

[lily]

in the interest of discussion, apart from the lenient treatment of molestation, what specifically do you find offensive about the book?.....

I see a councilor telling a kid that he isn't necessarily gay because his friends call him names.....that he isn't necessarily gay because he was molested by a man.....that he isn't necessarily gay because he had an unhappy childhood......I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that these aren't the messages you find offensive......please let me know which messages are......


I'm not going to read the 9 pages of arguemnt on gays, as it's always the same. I read a few posts after this one and I just want to comment on this.

What I find so offensive about this book, is it actually could have done some good for some child that was molested..........but by coming to the conclusion that you are going to be gay, because you were molested is going to stop some child from coming forward and telling what happened to him.

........that' prophet is why I find this book not only offensive, but dangerous.

[Buck Laser]

Yes, thank you. I think that the science based argument solely relies on the fact that members of the same sex can't reproduce...completely ignoring the psychological and emotional evidence that indicates homosexuality is healthy. Prejudice is what causes the negative psychological impacts..
Human behavior doesn't make bearing children the only attraction of sex. Some Christians seem to assume that's the case based on Aristotelian logic. But careful observation is a much better predictor of human behavior than religious belief. The assertion that reproduction must be the only reason for sex should be patently false to anyone who's watched monkeys masturbate.

[GhostintheMachine]

Or dolphins having sex for pleasure...

[Osborn F. Enready]

My whole issue is that I wouldn't be looking for a book to connect with my child at this level, on this type of topic. Its topics like this that come along with the responsibility of parenting, and I just fail to see how a book of this type could reach a child more effectively than good communication between parent and child.

[PostmodernProphet]

Would homosexuals forcing themselves to act heterosexually be maladaptive?I expect....just as it would be wrong for an albino to think he could win a suntanning contest....or wrong for an alcoholic to think he could drink without consequence.....


So is homosexuality, and living as homosexuals, maladaptive?likewise with engaging in homosexual activity....

Defining normal is not a silly question. I remember an abnormal psych course where they dedicated the entire first chapter solely to defining what "normal" is, and that definition was by no means universally agreed upon in psychology, just probably the most accepted one.and in biology?.....

And reducing the reproduction rate, while aiding those who have already reproduced, is harmful how?

and to have every member a part of the mating population, and that's why homosexuality may proliferate.

lol, it isn't necessary to engage in homosexual relations to reduce the reproduction rate.....one could simply not engage in sexual relations at all and accomplish the same thing....

but homosexual attraction does not result in harm to the personI suppose you could also argue that it does no harm for an alcoholic to WANT a drink as well.....but would you tell him it is good for him to take one?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

There is strong consensus that homosexuality is healthy.lol, yes, among homosexuals.....

Based on the assumption that reproduction is the only goal of a relationship?my position has nothing to do with relationship.....it is based upon biology.....

I still think the argument needs to get away from what is normal and what is healthy.

well of course you do....you can't win if it doesn't.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Of which are?

primarily the conflict that arises between them and the balance of society....

[PostmodernProphet]

It looks pretty evident to me that PMP is trying to find a way to get around biological science and still find a way to assert that homosexuality is a "genetic misfunction."sorry Buck, but if you deny it YOU are the one ignoring science....

completely ignoring the psychological and emotional evidence that indicates homosexuality is healthy

no more so than an alcoholic engaging in drinking is healthy.....

[PostmodernProphet]

but by coming to the conclusion that you are going to be gay, because you were molested

that isn't what the book says, Lily....the author specifically says you AREN'T gay simply because you were molested by a man....

[PostmodernProphet]

Or dolphins having sex for pleasure...

lol, Ghost.....a person can go swimming because they want to get to the other side of a river, or they can go swimming because it's fun.....but swimming in water is normal....swimming on concrete is not.....

[GhostintheMachine]

lol, yes, among homosexuals.....

No, among scientists:

Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.-American Psychological Association

http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.html

Here's a good article about sexual orientation conversion:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_changing.html

[PostmodernProphet]

Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.

you stick with your propaganda, I will stick with mine....

[GhostintheMachine]

sorry Buck, but if you deny it YOU are the one ignoring science....



no more so than an alcoholic engaging in drinking is healthy.....


Last time I checked homosexuality didn't cause cirrhosis of the liver, pancreatitis, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, alcoholic dementia, heart disease, increased chance of cancer, nutritional deficiencies, sexual dysfunction, and death from many sources. Nice try.

[GhostintheMachine]

you stick with your propaganda, I will stick with mine....

it's not propaganda, it's empirical research. So until you can provide an empirically valid argument that examines more than the simple fact that members of the same sex can't reproduce I don't buy it...

[PostmodernProphet]

it's not propaganda, it's empirical research. So until you can provide an empirically valid argument that examines more than the simple fact that members of the same sex can't reproduce I don't buy it...

you can get back to me when evolution produces a man with a vagina....(I won't demand a uterus)....THEN I will believe that homosexuality is normal.....

[GhostintheMachine]

Still not good enough reasoning to condemn homosexuality, but obviously you know that answering my question will show that you are being ignorant...this argument obviously isn't going anywhere..

[PostmodernProphet]

Last time I checked homosexuality didn't cause cirrhosis of the liver, pancreatitis, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, alcoholic dementia, heart disease, increased chance of cancer, nutritional deficiencies, sexual dysfunction, and death from many sources. Nice try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology


Post-Stonewall gay rights movement and the APA's declassification (1969 - Present)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Stonewall.jpg/180px-Stonewall.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stonewall.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stonewall.jpg)
The 1969 riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots) at the Stonewall Inn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn) began a movement of gay and lesbian visibility and policy reform.


In 1969, the Stonewall riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots) gave birth to the gay rights movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_social_movements) and increased the visibility of LGBT people. In 1973, after intense lobbying by gay and lesbian groups and new scientific information from researchers like Evelyn Hooker and Kinsey, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#cite_note-32) with a vote of 58% of the membership supporting the measure.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#cite_note-33) It was replaced with a diagnosis of egodystonic homosexuality, which was later removed. The current DSM contains a diagnosis of "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation."
Joseph Merlino, M.D., co-editor of the book American Psychiatry & Homosexuality, and psychiatry adviser to the New York Daily News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Daily_News), said in an interview of the APA's declassification:
“ It was activism. But there was not hard science to say that homosexuality was a disorder or an illness, and that was the reason why activists took aim at psychiatry and psychoanalysis and challenged them to come up with the data to support that position. And they couldn't! The only data they could come up with were psychoanalytic theories that were not data. The data that they called data was presented from small groups of clinical populations of people who are gay who didn't like or didn't want or couldn't accept being gay. That was the population from which this so-called data was extracted. What the gay activists did in the 1970's was pull out the true data, the scientific data that they could find, and presented it to the diagnosis committee of the American Psychiatric Association and persuaded them that the science that did exist was on the side of homosexuality not being a disease or a disorder. That is why the diagnosis committee--the Nomenclature Committee, which is what it was called--suggested to the Board of the American Psychiatric Association that it be removed, and it was. ” —Joseph Merlino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Merlino_%28doctor%29),

[GhostintheMachine]

That still doesn't provide any empirical evidence showing that homosexuality is a disorder. It didn't meet the criteria.


I like how you didn't put in this quote:

"A small minority of psychologists dispute the dominant view that homosexuality is not a mental disorder."


"In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that "almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic," according to the American Psychiatric Association.

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).

The American Psychological Association (APA) promptly endorsed the psychiatrists' actions, and has since worked intensively to eradicate the stigma historically associated with a homosexual orientation (APA, 1975; 1987).

Conclusion Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.

The foregoing should not be construed as an argument that sexual minority individuals are free from mental illness and psychological distress. Indeed, given the stresses created by sexual stigma and prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest psychological problems (Meyer, 2003). The data from some studies suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals (Cochran & Mays, 2006).

Unfortunately, because of the way they were originally designed, most of these studies do not yield information about whether and to what extent such risks might be greater for various subgroups within the sexual minority population (e.g., individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual versus those who do not; bisexuals versus lesbians and gay men). In future research, it will be important to compare different sexual minority groups in order to understand how so many individuals withstand the stresses imposed by sexual prejudice, and to identify effective strategies for treating those with psychological problems."-http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

[Alonzo]

and in biology?.....

I don't know, but I would assume biology would look at the statical part. Though I don't think the concept of normal is as important in biology as it is in psychology. They would likely be more concerned about its evolutionary effect, of which homosexuality may provide a benefit to the population.

lol, it isn't necessary to engage in homosexual relations to reduce the reproduction rate.....one could simply not engage in sexual relations at all and accomplish the same thing....

The relevance of that is? They both accomplish the same ends. Virtually everyone has sexual and emotional needs that a partner provides. But gender isn't universal. In many animals, such as crocodiles, temperature determines gender. In humans, the same structures eventually form both male and female genitals.

It would seem easier, biologically, to alter what type of human you're attracted to than to lose all sexual attraction
to humans.

You're disputing a hypothesis about evolutionary processes by saying "It didn't happen that way, because a different means (no attraction) would have produced the same end result (lower breeding population)!" It's irrelevant, evolution is not only about what works, it's not about the most efficient solution, it's about which change occurred, if that change aided the species reproduction, and then if it spread through the population.

I suppose you could also argue that it does no harm for an alcoholic to WANT a drink as well.....but would you tell him it is good for him to take one?.....

An urge to drink is a risk factor for alcoholism, and being a homosexual is what?

[Alonzo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

Wow, didn't know you switched sides.

How does posting an article saying that there's no evidence that homosexuality was a disease or illness, and that there was evidence to the contrary, support your argument?

[Buck Laser]

Wow, didn't know you switched sides.

How does posting an article saying that there's no evidence that homosexuality was a disease or illness, and that there was evidence to the contrary, support your argument?
Maybe it's a matter of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." No pun intended...:innocent:

[Alonzo]

you can get back to me when evolution produces a man with a vagina....(I won't demand a uterus)....THEN I will believe that homosexuality is normal.....

You're making this way too easy:

Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries).....


46, XX Intersex. The person has the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male. This usually is the result of a female fetus having been exposed to excess male hormones before birth. The labia ("lips" or folds of skin of the external female genitals) fuse, and the clitoris enlarges to appear like a penis. Usually this person has a normal uterus and Fallopian tubes. This condition is also called 46, XX with virilization. It used to be called female pseudohermaphroditism.


46, XY Intersex. The person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization. It used to be called male pseudohermaphroditism. Forming normal male external genitals depends on the appropriate balance between male and female hormones; therefore, enough requires the adequate production and function of male hormones.


True Gonadal Intersex. Here the person must have both ovarian and testicular tissue. This might be in the same gonad (an ovotestis) or the person might have one ovary and one testis. The person may have XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes, or both. The external genitals may be ambiguous, or may appear to be female or male. This condition used to be called true hermaphroditism. In most people with true gonadal intersex, the underlying cause is unknown, although in some animal studies it has been linked to exposure to common agricultural pesticides.

Complex or Undetermined Intersex. Many chromosome configurations other than simple 46, XX or 46, XY can result in disorders of sex development. These include 45, XO (only one X chromosome), and 47, XXY, 47, XXX -- both cases have an extra sex chromosome, either an X or a Y.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm

Essentially, every combination can and does occur.

[PostmodernProphet]

They would likely be more concerned about its evolutionary effect

let's consider the evolutionary aspects of homosexuality.....

consider an array of one celled creatures.....predominantly, the spawn of these creatures follow a particular pattern....from time to time variations occur.....these variations are natural, but obviously, the fact that they ARE variations means that they are not what one would consider normative for these one celled creatures.....

now, it is possible that some of these variations will thrive and pass their altered nature on to future generations....these may with time become new species of one celled creatures.....others will not be able to reproduce....they are evolutionary dead ends....the array as a whole may continue to produce these variations, and in fact the variations may be identical to dead end variations which were previously produced.....but each new generation of these variations are unable to reproduce....they will forever be dead ends.....

this is where the variation of "homosexual" falls.....

[PostmodernProphet]

You're disputing a hypothesis about evolutionary processes

no, I am denying it is an evolutionary process, since it is non-reproductive....it is an evolutionary dead end....

[PostmodernProphet]

An urge to drink is a risk factor for alcoholism, and being a homosexual is what?

no, an urge to drink is a risk factor for alcoholism and an urge to engage in same sex sexual activity is a risk factor for homosexuality.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow, didn't know you switched sides.

How does posting an article saying that there's no evidence that homosexuality was a disease or illness, and that there was evidence to the contrary, support your argument?

sure if you ignore the parts that say it was a political decision reached under pressure from gay activists.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Essentially, every combination can and does occur.
??...so it is your position that the existence of other abnormalities creates normality?.....

[Alonzo]

let's consider the evolutionary aspects of homosexuality.....

consider an array of one celled creatures.....predominantly, the spawn of these creatures follow a particular pattern....from time to time variations occur.....these variations are natural, but obviously, the fact that they ARE variations means that they are not what one would consider normative for these one celled creatures.....

We each inherit hundreds of genetic mutations from our parents, as they did from their forebears. In addition, the DNA in our own cells undergoes an estimated 30 new mutations during our lifetime, either through mistakes during DNA copying or cell division or, more often, because of damage from the environment.

http://www.hhmi.org/genetictrail/d100.html

Seems like you're a walking abnormality PMP.

I think I'm going to have to confiscate your normal card.

now, it is possible that some of these variations will thrive and pass their altered nature on to future generations....these may with time become new species of one celled creatures.....others will not be able to reproduce....they are evolutionary dead ends....the array as a whole may continue to produce these variations, and in fact the variations may be identical to dead end variations which were previously produced.....but each new generation of these variations are unable to reproduce....they will forever be dead ends.....

this is where the variation of "homosexual" falls.....

That's entirely correct and displays complete misunderstanding of the process of evolution:

Kin selection refers to changes in gene frequency across generations that are driven at least in part by interactions between related individuals, and this forms much of the conceptual basis of the theory of social evolution. Indeed, some cases of evolution by natural selection can only be understood by considering how biological relatives influence one another's fitness. Under natural selection, a gene encoding a trait that enhances the fitness of each individual carrying it should increase in frequency within the population; and conversely, a gene that lowers the individual fitness of its carriers should be eliminated. However, a gene that prompts behaviour which enhances the fitness of relatives but lowers that of the individual displaying the behavior, may nonetheless increase in frequency, because relatives often carry the same gene; this is the fundamental principle behind the theory of kin selection. According to the theory, the enhanced fitness of relatives can at times more than compensate for the fitness loss incurred by the individuals displaying the behaviour. As such, this is a special case of a more general model, called "inclusive fitness" (in that inclusive fitness refers simply to gene copies in other individuals, without requiring that they be kin).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Kin_Selection_in_Evolutionary_Psycho logy

There are variants of the theory, but it is clear that what is harmful for the individuals chance of reproduction is not always harmful for the group.

Think of it this way, if you produce one child and your sibling produce 3, or you produce 0 and your siblings produce 20, which is a more effective way to pass on your genes?

[Alonzo]

no, an urge to drink is a risk factor for alcoholism and an urge to engage in same sex sexual activity is a risk factor for homosexuality.....

Urge to engage in same sex activity is homosexuality. It's a risk factor for overt homosexual behavior, and the same is true for heterosexuality. You've shown neither to be "abnormal" other than statistically. Your example only works if you assume homosexuality to be maladaptive.

sure if you ignore the parts that say it was a political decision reached under pressure from gay activists.....

It simply points out that activists told them to provide evidence or remove it. Most fields aren't in the habit of diagnosing disorders or diseases in people when there's no evidence that such things are actually diseases. Psychology shouldn't be either.

??...so it is your position that the existence of other abnormalities creates normality?.....

You said:

you can get back to me when evolution produces a man with a vagina....(I won't demand a uterus)....THEN I will believe that homosexuality is normal.....

So, if you are a man of your word, you now believe that homosexuality is normal.

[PostmodernProphet]

Seems like you're a walking abnormality PMP.

I think I'm going to have to confiscate your normal card.

my point exactly......these cells are NOT normal.....

There are variants of the theory, but it is clear that what is harmful for the individuals chance of reproduction is not always harmful for the group.

your analysis assumes much.....first, that the existence of homosexuals actually impacts the group at all....and that they aren't simply one of those thirty random mutations that we experience regularly....

second that the impact if it exists, is positive and that we don't exist despite homosexuals instead of because of them.....

obviously, neither assumption can ever be more than mere conjecture.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Urge to engage in same sex activity is homosexuality. It's a risk factor for overt homosexual behavior, and the same is true for heterosexuality. You've shown neither to be "abnormal" other than statistically.drinking is an activity, alcoholism is a condition....engaging in same sex activity is an activity, homosexuality is a condition.....neither alcoholism or homosexuality is a condition of a normally functioning human being....


Quote:
you can get back to me when evolution produces a man with a vagina....(I won't demand a uterus)....THEN I will believe that homosexuality is normal.....
So, if you are a man of your word, you now believe that homosexuality is normal.

what a strange question.....no, I don't believe homosexuality is normal and yes I am a man of my word....

[GhostintheMachine]

drinking is an activity, alcoholism is a condition....engaging in same sex activity is an activity, homosexuality is a condition.....neither alcoholism or homosexuality is a condition of a normally functioning human being....

Like I said earlier, you can't use alcoholism as an analogy for homosexuality. Homosexuality does not cause "cirrhosis of the liver, pancreatitis, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, alcoholic dementia, heart disease, increased chance of cancer, nutritional deficiencies, sexual dysfunction, and death."

[Alonzo]

my point exactly......these cells are NOT normal.....

Ever cell in your body is "abnormal" then. All non-sex cells in your body contain the same DNA, just different parts of it are activated. If mutations are in every cell, and there are hundreds of mutations in those cells, it's hard to call it "abnormal" as there is no human that is "normal" then.

your analysis assumes much.....first, that the existence of homosexuals actually impacts the group at all....and that they aren't simply one of those thirty random mutations that we experience regularly....

second that the impact if it exists, is positive and that we don't exist despite homosexuals instead of because of them.....

You have, on average, 30 mutations during your life. You have hundreds of mutations that have been with you since the sperm and egg cells where created.

obviously, neither assumption can ever be more than mere conjecture.....

Except that, mathematically, if a behavior is harmful to one members but increases the survival and reproduction of the group as a whole, then similar genes to theirs are likely to be passed on.

That homosexuality is the result of this is much more debatable. Homosexuality is seen in solitary animals but tends to be more common in social animals, suggesting that it's presented in most animals but the evolutionary benefit differs between species.

what a strange question.....no, I don't believe homosexuality is normal and yes I am a man of my word....

You said if a man was born with a vagina you'd believe homosexuality is normal. I showed you how that can happen, and there are women who go to doctors, after being unable to conceive, and it turns out that, genetically, they're male.

Here's another way that can happen:

Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

Genetically male (XY) babies with this condition typically are born with a vaginal opening and clitoris indistinguishable from those seen in normal female (XX) babies.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:A6q8j7ydZs8J:www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-94130313.html+%22genetically+male%22+vagina&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

Now you said:

when evolution produces a man with a vagina....(I won't demand a uterus)....THEN I will believe that homosexuality is normal.....

And, in response, I've shown you that men can have vagina's. Exactly what you asked for. Therefore, according to what you told me, the challenge you posed, you should now believe that homosexuality is normal.

drinking is an activity, alcoholism is a condition....engaging in same sex activity is an activity, homosexuality is a condition.....neither alcoholism or homosexuality is a condition of a normally functioning human being....

And the difference between addiction and sexual attraction is qualitative. The distinction between types of attraction is quantitative, it's the degree of certain forms of sexual attraction. Unless you can show that homosexuality is abnormal, that it's harmful, then you've failed to show that homosexuality is abnormal, or can in any way be compared to alcoholism.

[PostmodernProphet]

Like I said earlier, you can't use alcoholism as an analogy for homosexuality.

lol, pardon me if I ignore your "instructions"....even if the catalog is different, you cannot deny that both alcoholism and homosexuality create psychological and emotional difficulties for those who have those problems......

[PostmodernProphet]

Ever cell in your body is "abnormal" then. All non-sex cells in your body contain the same DNA, just different parts of it are activated. If mutations are in every cell, and there are hundreds of mutations in those cells, it's hard to call it "abnormal" as there is no human that is "normal" then.

no, every cell isn't "abnormal".....when a doctor orders an analysis of blood, for example, that analysis isn't based on the assumption that every cell they find is going to be "abnormal".......they look for something which should not be there......

it doesn't take a complex argument to determine that a response of sexual stimulation is what "should not be there" between persons of the same sex......

[PostmodernProphet]

Except that, mathematically, if a behavior is harmful to one members but increases the survival and reproduction of the group as a whole, then similar genes to theirs are likely to be passed on.

unlike the passing of traits directly, such a process would require some means for the group to identify in advance which type of mating would result in the mutation......

in theory, if the offspring of a mating between a red bird and a black bird resulted in an occurrence of something negative to the group you might see a drift of something which would prevent red birds and black birds from mating......but if there is no way of predicting which mating will produce a mutation, even if that mutation is negative for the group how could you have an evolutionary drift to block it.......

and vice versa for a positive drift.....

[PostmodernProphet]

And, in response, I've shown you that men can have vagina's. Exactly what you asked for. Therefore, according to what you told me, the challenge you posed, you should now believe that homosexuality is normal.I think a person with sufficient intelligence to find a keyboard and type a message on it understands what I was saying, so I will assume you jest.....

let's be clear.....if evolution produces a new species in which it is normal for a man to have a vagina.....then you will have demonstrated that homosexuality is normal......showing another abnormality does not demonstrate normality.....

[PostmodernProphet]

And the difference between addiction and sexual attraction is qualitative. The distinction between types of attraction is quantitative, it's the degree of certain forms of sexual attraction. Unless you can show that homosexuality is abnormal, that it's harmful, then you've failed to show that homosexuality is abnormal, or can in any way be compared to alcoholism.ah....unlike alcoholics who will let themselves go to the point they lie in alleys with a bottle of cheap wine, we would never expect a homosexual to go to public bathrooms in airports to solicit sex with total strangers even though anyone of them would thus be empowered to totally destroy their political careers......what form does addiction take?......

actually, we might tie that in with your argument about gene pools.....on one had we have the Democratic gene pool in which the existence of a homosexual politician results in promotion to party leadership, as if the gene pool senses that his existence somehow benefits the gene pool.....on the other hand we have the Republican gene pool in which the existence of a homosexual politician results in his exclusion.......interesting.....

[GhostintheMachine]

lol, pardon me if I ignore your "instructions"....even if the catalog is different, you cannot deny that both alcoholism and homosexuality create psychological and emotional difficulties for those who have those problems......

Actually I can deny that, you are ignoring the research and data I have put up. The majority of psychological difficulties that a homosexual individual experiences are related to intolerance and bigotry. There is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSENSUS among psychologists that homosexuality is not a "problem," please don't make me post links to this data again...for you have still failed to provide any sort of empirical evidence beyond the fact that members of the same sex can't reproduce, which once again implies that the only reasoning for a sexual attraction and relationships is reproduction...You're ignoring what psychologists have spent a considerable amount of time studying, and frankly I'm a bit annoyed that you keep talking around that point.

[GhostintheMachine]

ah....unlike alcoholics who will let themselves go to the point they lie in alleys with a bottle of cheap wine, we would never expect a homosexual to go to public bathrooms in airports to solicit sex with total strangers even though anyone of them would thus be empowered to totally destroy their political careers......what form does addiction take?......

That's what we like to call outliers, and I think that making the argument that homosexuals solicit sex for their "addiction" is ridiculous, look at the heterosexual population, the porn industry makes millions of dollars each year and prostitution is one of the world's oldest profession. Yet when you hear of an example of illicit sex by a homosexual the world freaks out. For one thing I would argue that sexuality is a continuum and that even though this particular politician may have solicited sex he may not have a long term attraction to males. However, whether or not he is gay or straight isn't really important, the fact is that soliciting sex is wrong. But that certainly doesn't make him the representative of the claim that homosexuality is an "addictive disease" like alcoholism.

actually, we might tie that in with your argument about gene pools.....on one had we have the Democratic gene pool in which the existence of a homosexual politician results in promotion to party leadership, as if the gene pool senses that his existence somehow benefits the gene pool.....on the other hand we have the Republican gene pool in which the existence of a homosexual politician results in his exclusion.......interesting.....[

wow, so does that mean you are advocating Social Darwinism? Because I'm pretty sure I know of a guy in Germany around the 1940s who loved that concept...:dizzy:

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually I can deny that, you are ignoring the research and data I have put up. The majority of psychological difficulties that a homosexual individual experiences are related to intolerance and bigotry.which by the left's definition includes not treating the abnormal as normal......

please don't make me post links to this data again.you can link crap till the cows come home if you want.....

, which once again implies that the only reasoning for a sexual attraction.......is reproduction.

well, duh....do ya think?......

[PostmodernProphet]

claim that homosexuality is an "addictive disease" like alcoholism

what I have claimed, and what is obvious, is that like alcoholism, homosexuality is obviously the human body functioning abnormally.....

[PostmodernProphet]

wow, so does that mean you are advocating Social Darwinism? Because I'm pretty sure I know of a guy in Germany around the 1940s who loved that concept...:dizzy:

oh get it out of your system....call me a fucking Nazi and get it behind you......idiot.....

[Buck Laser]

what I have claimed, and what is obvious, is that like alcoholism, homosexuality is obviously the human body functioning abnormally.....
But the only evidence you can adduce to support your cockamamie theory is your own opinion. That makes it "obvious?":shock::madlaugh:

[GhostintheMachine]

oh get it out of your system....call me a fucking Nazi and get it behind you......idiot.....

I'm not going to call you a Nazi. By I am going to say that your line of thinking that implies that homosexuals are inferior is in many ways scarily similar to Social Darwinism.

[GhostintheMachine]

PostmodernProphet;194235]which by the left's definition includes not treating the abnormal as normal......

you can link crap till the cows come home if you want.....

And you can continue to provide personal opinions that are unable to make any viable argument against them...



well, duh....do ya think?......

So personally I think it's irrelevant when making an argument against homosexuality. It still does not prove that homosexuality is bad for society.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not going to call you a Nazi.
you already have.....

By I am going to say that your line of thinking that implies that homosexuals are inferior is in many ways scarily similar to Social Darwinism.

pardon me?....I have never said I believed homosexuals to be "inferior".....I believe liberals to be inferior......homosexuals are merely abnormal......

[PostmodernProphet]

And you can continue to provide personal opinions that are unable to make any viable argument against them...





So personally I think it's irrelevant when making an argument against homosexuality. It still does not prove that homosexuality is bad for society.

homosexuality isn't bad for society......pretending that homosexuality is normal is bad for society.....forcing ignorance upon society and pretending it is truth is ALWAYS bad for society.....

[GhostintheMachine]

homosexuality isn't bad for society......pretending that homosexuality is normal is bad for society.....forcing ignorance upon society and pretending it is truth is ALWAYS bad for society.....

The negative impact upon homosexuals when society perceives them as abnormal or dysfunction is very high. So tell me how that isn't bad for society when they are members of society? Or are you going to say that they are second class citizens? Because that is the way they are treated in today's society.

[Elrathin]

Tell us PMP, how is allowing gay marriage saying that it is normal?

[PostmodernProphet]

The negative impact upon homosexuals when society perceives them as abnormal or dysfunction is very high. So tell me how that isn't bad for society when they are members of society? Or are you going to say that they are second class citizens? Because that is the way they are treated in today's society.

the fact that they demand to be treated as if they did not have improperly functioning bodies is WHY they remain alienated.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Tell us PMP, how is allowing gay marriage saying that it is normal?

???....isn't it obvious?....saying that a relationship between two men is the equivalent to a relationship between a man and a woman HAS to be a claim that it is normal....do you recall the objection that was raised in Massachusetts to civil unions?.....that it created a separate but equal status which was not acceptable....only being treated as "normal" was acceptable.......

[GhostintheMachine]

the fact that they demand to be treated as if they did not have improperly functioning bodies is WHY they remain alienated.....

So how should we treat them then?

Perhaps we should make sure to remind those individuals who may have a physical handicap that they have an improperly functioning body as well. That way they can be reminded and treated as though they are significantly different than "normal functioning people." I'm sure they would appreciate that.

Your statement implies major prejudice.

[GhostintheMachine]

???....isn't it obvious?....saying that a relationship between two men is the equivalent to a relationship between a man and a woman HAS to be a claim that it is normal....do you recall the objection that was raised in Massachusetts to civil unions?.....that it created a separate but equal status which was not acceptable....only being treated as "normal" was acceptable.......

So instead you should force to treat homosexuals as second class citizens who in your mind are unable to have a healthy relationship. I can show you more studies showing that homosexuals have just as good long term relationships.

[GhostintheMachine]

Okay, I'm tired of this, this argument is going nowhere. So here is my last statement:

Just because members of the same sex can't reproduce does not mean that they cannot have meaningful relationships. I mean we don't discriminate against infertile couples do we? The impact of being viewed as abnormal is highly negative upon an individual's emotional and psychological well-being. So what exactly is at stake when you arge that homosexuals are abnormal and dysfunctional? Quite a bit. Homosexuals should not be treated as second-class citizens, and I firmly believe that we should all work to understand that being gay is perfectly healthy and that gay people should not have to try and "overcome their affliction" through conversions that have been proven to have very low success. A little understanding and compassion goes a long way in fixing problems in today's society.

[Elrathin]

saying that a relationship between two men is the equivalent to a relationship between a man and a woman HAS to be a claim that it is normal.

No it means that they are TREATED EQUALLY, not necessarily that they are normal. Not all marriages are the same and some frankly aren't "normal". Also just because something isn't normal, doesn't mean it is bad or that it should be illegal.

Some married couples like bondage. That isn't normal, but that isn't illegal either.

[PostmodernProphet]

So instead you should force to treat homosexuals as second class citizens who in your mind are unable to have a healthy relationship. I can show you more studies showing that homosexuals have just as good long term relationships.

again you equate relationships with sex......a major failing in your argument....

A little understanding and compassion goes a long way in fixing problems in today's society.

you aren't giving them understanding and compassion, you are feeding their delusions......it's the same as if you gave an alcoholic a fifth of whiskey and told him he could drink all he wanted, because you "understand" him.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No it means that they are TREATED EQUALLY, not necessarily that they are normal. Not all marriages are the same and some frankly aren't "normal". Also just because something isn't normal, doesn't mean it is bad or that it should be illegal.

Some married couples like bondage. That isn't normal, but that isn't illegal either.

and it isn't illegal for two men to have sex, nor have I argued it should be....but demanding that marriage be altered to conform to their choices goes far beyond saying that we should tolerate their choices....it goes to the point where they demand that I change my beliefs about what is normal to comply with their choices.....

[Elrathin]

and it isn't illegal for two men to have sex, nor have I argued it should be....but demanding that marriage be altered to conform to their choices goes far beyond saying that we should tolerate their choices....it goes to the point where they demand that I change my beliefs about what is normal to comply with their choices.....

Having a choice being LEGAL, does not equate to normal. No amount of spin can change that fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

Having a choice being LEGAL, does not equate to normal. No amount of spin can change that fact.

true enough....that is why, although it is legal for two men to have sexual relations, it will never be normal.....

[Elrathin]

true enough....that is why, although it is legal for two men to have sexual relations, it will never be normal.....

And that is also why even though gay marriage may be legal, it will not be normal to you. See? You can have something be legal without being normal so you can stop complaining about gay marriage then.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I don't think "normal" has a social value, so whats the point PMP?

Do you have something against non-normality?

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think "normal" has a social value, so whats the point PMP?

Do you have something against non-normality?

I have something against the law telling me to treat something as normal when it obviously isn't......same thing with laws telling me it is a good thing to kill an unborn fetus......

[Elrathin]

I have something against the law telling me to treat something as normal when it obviously isn't.

You have been shown that something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it is normal. So again, you have nothing to complain about gay marriage.

[Alonzo]

lol, pardon me if I ignore your "instructions"....even if the catalog is different, you cannot deny that both alcoholism and homosexuality create psychological and emotional difficulties for those who have those problems......

What psychological and emotional difficulties does homosexuality create outside of social prejudice?

no, every cell isn't "abnormal".....when a doctor orders an analysis of blood, for example, that analysis isn't based on the assumption that every cell they find is going to be "abnormal".......they look for something which should not be there......

it doesn't take a complex argument to determine that a response of sexual stimulation is what "should not be there" between persons of the same sex......

You said cells with genetic mutations are "abnormal", but every single cell has genetic mutations in it. So either change your definition of "abnormal" or, by your definition, every cell is "abnormal".

Now if you mean functioning abnormally, and by abnormal you mean in a way that doesn't cause harm, then that's different. It's also a different definition.

unlike the passing of traits directly, such a process would require some means for the group to identify in advance which type of mating would result in the mutation......

No. If genes are present in a group, and many members of that group are carriers of that or those genes, but someone with the gene or genes displays the trait and that causes their inability to reproduce, that could help the gene spread. The reason is that if that also resulted in increasing the chance of others to reproduce, then those with the same genes you possess are more likely to be passed on, even if you're not the one doing it.

It requires no conscious choice, it merely requires a gene that appears in members who don't reproduce, and when those members posses those genes that others in the population are more likely to reproduce.

let's be clear.....if evolution produces a new species in which it is normal for a man to have a vagina.....then you will have demonstrated that homosexuality is normal......showing another abnormality does not demonstrate normality.....

There are animals that can change from female to male, so the male would have had a vagina at one point. But I think it's a bit ridiculous, especially since you've yet to define what "normal" is as far as I remember. I'm the only one who gave a definition of normal.

ah....unlike alcoholics who will let themselves go to the point they lie in alleys with a bottle of cheap wine, we would never expect a homosexual to go to public bathrooms in airports to solicit sex with total strangers even though anyone of them would thus be empowered to totally destroy their political careers......what form does addiction take?......

And heterosexuals don't have sex in bathrooms? The only reason there may be an abnormal amount of gay people doing it is because they don't want to get caught bringing a homosexual home and have their neighbors, wife etc. find out.

I wonder, are you going to ever present reputable psychological evidence that homosexuality is abnormal, a disorder etc.?

[Alonzo]

Also, I wonder PMP, what do you say to the wives and husbands of homosexuals who try to suppress their desires and live a "normal" life but, after 10, 20 or 30 years of marriage decide they can't do it anymore?

You're encouraging behavior that they lack the desire for, and in doing so you're encouraging them to bring other heterosexuals into their lives, to have a romantic relationship with them, and essentially to lie to them, sometimes with devastating consequences. .

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
I have something against the law telling me to treat something as normal when it obviously isn't.

So your entire issue is having to tolerate the freedom of others, and treating them as equals?

Its this lack of tolerance, and this will to use force as a cudgel against others whom you disagree with that is ruining, and has been ruining this country since its inception.

You can't have liberty without tolerance, and you are obviously taking an anti-tolerance stance toward other peoples way of life because it conflicts with "your" perception of "normality".

PMP said:
....same thing with laws telling me it is a good thing to kill an unborn fetus......

Nice attempt at derailment, but I never championed a law, nor do I know of a law that says anything about "killing a fetus being good".

[PostmodernProphet]

You have been shown that something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it is normal. So again, you have nothing to complain about gay marriage.

I have been shown jack shit.....there is a big difference between it being legal for two people to engage in sex and laws forcing the entire country to treat a same sex relationship as the equivalent of marriage....

[PostmodernProphet]

What psychological and emotional difficulties does homosexuality create outside of social prejudice?

if there weren't psychological and emotional problems attached there would never have been an issue of being "in the closet".....

[Alonzo]

if there weren't psychological and emotional problems attached there would never have been an issue of being "in the closet".....

That's not evidence of psychological and emotional issues, that's evidence of societal prejudice and being afraid to tell people you're a homosexual.

[PostmodernProphet]

You said cells with genetic mutations are "abnormal", but every single cell has genetic mutations in it. So either change your definition of "abnormal" or, by your definition, every cell is "abnormal".

Now if you mean functioning abnormally, and by abnormal you mean in a way that doesn't cause harm, then that's different. It's also a different definition.

dude, if a man gets sexually excited by another man, something is obviously functioning abnormally.....general consensus is that this is the result of a biological cause....so whether it is simply an abnormal function of healthy cells or caused by cells that are genetically abnormal I don't know....but the net result is abnormal.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No. If genes are present in a group, and many members of that group are carriers of that or those genes, but someone with the gene or genes displays the trait and that causes their inability to reproduce, that could help the gene spread. The reason is that if that also resulted in increasing the chance of others to reproduce, then those with the same genes you possess are more likely to be passed on, even if you're not the one doing it.

this lacks causation.....the population would be unable to predict which mating pair to support to produce additional homosexuals.....

[PostmodernProphet]

There are animals that can change from female to male, so the male would have had a vagina at one point. But I think it's a bit ridiculous, especially since you've yet to define what "normal" is as far as I remember. I'm the only one who gave a definition of normal.

screw it....nobody dealing with this issue honestly needs a definition or an explanation to understand abnormality.....

[PostmodernProphet]

So your entire issue is having to tolerate the freedom of others, and treating them as equals?

no this issue is about fucking liberals cramming their beliefs down the throat of the whole fucking country.....but I am through with this bullshit debate and all the people denying something as obvious as the nose on their face.....

[Buck Laser]

no this issue is about fucking liberals cramming their beliefs down the throat of the whole fucking country.....but I am through with this bullshit debate and all the people denying something as obvious as the nose on their face.....

I hope and pray you really mean that part about being through with this thread. You certainly have been pwned about 50 times here.

[PostmodernProphet]

I hope and pray you really mean that part about being through with this thread. You certainly have been pwned about 50 times here.

don't cheer, Buck....you couldn't even afford to rent.....

[Elrathin]

PMP, the only thing you have presented is emotional responses, surely not logical, as to why gay marriage should be illegal. You even admitted yourself that things that aren't normal are legal in many cases. Gay marriage would just be another one of those.

Sorry, but it will become legal eventually and you will have to deal with it.

On that day I will be toasting a drink lol.

[Alonzo]

dude, if a man gets sexually excited by another man, something is obviously functioning abnormally.....general consensus is that this is the result of a biological cause....so whether it is simply an abnormal function of healthy cells or caused by cells that are genetically abnormal I don't know....but the net result is abnormal.....

And the definition of abnormal is?

And evidence supporting that this is abnormal or harmful is?

Is it so obvious that no evidence exists for it, because no evidence is needed to support the obvious? Is that your point?

this lacks causation.....the population would be unable to predict which mating pair to support to produce additional homosexuals.....

The one that has it is less likely to mate because the trait makes mating less likely, and increasing the chance of other matings. The cause is the genetic trait. For example, in some animals the first one who hears a sound stands up, increasing their chance of being eaten while decreasing the chance of others being eaten, as they run away. If, with homosexuals, it decreases their chance of breeding, but increases the people who look over kids, in terms of gathering food and protecting them from harm, that would increase the chance of another persons child surviving.

screw it....nobody dealing with this issue honestly needs a definition or an explanation to understand abnormality.....

"The definition of normal and abnormal is so obvious that I don't even need to know how to define it!"

Is that what you're trying to say?

no this issue is about fucking liberals cramming their beliefs down the throat of the whole fucking country.....but I am through with this bullshit debate and all the people denying something as obvious as the nose on their face.....

So when states say homosexuals can't have sex, or can't engage in civil unions, or can't marry, they're not forcing their beliefs on anyone?

If you have a willing justice of the peace, and a willing couple, how are they forcing their beliefs on you? No one is saying you have to be involved. Though maybe you feel tempted to be involved? Is that the real issue here?

[PostmodernProphet]

"The definition of normal and abnormal is so obvious that I don't even need to know how to define it!"

Is that what you're trying to say?I'm not debating that issue anymore....you know as well as I do that it is abnormal, I have covered how it is abnormal repeatedly for pages....you're just being pissy and pretending the obvious isn't.....

So when states say homosexuals can't have sex, or can't engage in civil unions, or can't marry, they're not forcing their beliefs on anyone?no one is saying that they can't do what they wish to do in the privacy of their own homes....they go too far when they demand that everyone else consider their activities to be normal.....

Though maybe you feel tempted to be involved? Is that the real issue here?

thanks for causing the debate to deteriorate even further.....idiot......

[Buck Laser]

PMP, you promised to leave this thread. But you keep on staying. Why?

[Alonzo]

I'm not debating that issue anymore....you know as well as I do that it is abnormal, I have covered how it is abnormal repeatedly for pages....you're just being pissy and pretending the obvious isn't.....

Ya know, if it's so simple then you could have saved yourself the time and simply said what abnormal and normal are, or at least the definition as you understand it.

no one is saying that they can't do what they wish to do in the privacy of their own homes....they go too far when they demand that everyone else consider their activities to be normal.....

So you can tell them they can't get married, but they can't get married while you stay home and do absolutely nothing?

Umm....... who's controlling who here?

thanks for causing the debate to deteriorate even further.....idiot......

Ahhh fuck, already got a neg for it so I might as well run with it:

Cs4Gj7JsET4

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP, you promised to leave this thread. But you keep on staying. Why?Buck, if you ever contribute anything of value to a debate we will all die of shock....
\
Ahhh fuck, already got a neg for it so I might as well run with it: first you pretend that reality isn't reality then you shift to personal insults.....

Ya know, if it's so simple then you could have saved yourself the time and simply said what abnormal and normal are, or at least the definition as you understand it.

sorry Zo, but if you haven't understood what I am saying after fifteen pages, then either you are playing games or you are just too fucking stupid to ever get it......

[Alonzo]

first you pretend that reality isn't reality then you shift to personal insults.....

You called me an idiot and then, as a response, I posted a video of pee wee herman saying "I know you are but what am I?"

Then, right below this, you call me "fucking stupid".

And you want to accuse me of personal attacks?

sorry Zo, but if you haven't understood what I am saying after fifteen pages, then either you are playing games or you are just too fucking stupid to ever get it......

You haven't been backing up your points. When you say there's something wrong with homosexuals, and I ask why that's the case, your answer amounts to "Just look at them! It's obvious!". When you say they're abnormal I ask you "How are you defining abnorml?" and you say "It's obvious!"

The amazing thing is not that I haven't understood you in 15 pages, but that I've been essentially saying the same thing for 15 pages and you haven't actually presented any evidence, or even defined the terms you're using, yet you keep arguing.

[PostmodernProphet]

And you want to accuse me of personal attacks?

of course....I called you an idiot for turning to accusing me of being a closet homosexual.....an example of the vaunted liberal tolerance I assume.....

[Alonzo]

I asked a question because you seemed to be getting agitated. I don't see homosexuality as a bad thing and I didn't see it as insulting.

Though I think the one thing I learned from this is that your opposition to homosexuality is based on your feelings about it, as you have repeatedly refused to provide evidence or even define what your definition of abnormal is.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
no this issue is about fucking liberals cramming their beliefs down the throat of the whole fucking country.....but I am through with this bullshit debate and all the people denying something as obvious as the nose on their face.....

Are they forcing you to be gay, or to gay marry?

No. They are saying accept gays who choose, or feel they are born to be gay and let them live the same life your rights entitle you to live.

I don't think your position is compatible with liberty or individual rights, so it should be no suprise that many Americans don't see it as you do.

[PostmodernProphet]

No. They are saying accept gays who choose, or feel they are born to be gay and let them live the same life your rights entitle you to live.


thank you...I rest my case....it is not sufficient that I "tolerate", the left demands that we "accept".....

tol·er·ate
1: to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort : exhibit physiological tolerance for2 a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindr