Homosexuals & Mental Health

[Kulturkampf]

Doctors have found tremendous information pertinent to homosexuals and their mental status which could imply deeper notions about homosexuality. One question for everyone to discuss is:

If homosexuality is coupled with mental issues so much, is homosexuality a form of an identity crisis that could cause these issues?

Question: Just how prevalent is mental disease amongst homosexuals?

"More than a quarter of homosexual men and a third of homosexual women admitted that they had deliberately tried to injure themselves. " (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1327)

"One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998)." (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html)

"43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition." (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html)

"Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health," the researchers reported (p. 556)." (http://www.narth.com/docs/symptoms.html)

"Gay men were almost ten percentage points more apt to suffer mental disorder (44% to 35%) than heterosexuals, with almost the same relative rate for lesbians compared to straight women (44% to 34%)." (http://www.narth.com/docs/symptoms.html)

"Concerning drug use, 52% of homosexual men and 44% of lesbian women reported such activity within a 30-day period preceding their interview, as contrasted with 45% and 33% of the straight men and women, respectively." (http://www.narth.com/docs/symptoms.html)

"Alcoholism is a fatal chronic illness affecting the lives of 20-30% of the homosexual population. Studies have found that 35% of lesbians had a history of excessive drinking, compared to only 5% of the heterosexual women. In addition, further studies have shown that 30% of lesbians and gay men are addicted to drugs, suggesting that the gay and lesbian community constitutes a high-risk population with regard to alcoholism and drug abuse." (http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/information/queerhealth/glbsubstanceabuse/)

Question: Could homosexuality have to do with an identity crisis?

In a study that used 505 heterosexual males, 656 homosexual men, 588 heterosexual women, 43 homosexual females, 85 bisexual men, and 113 bisexual women, "63 homosexual men and 14 homosexual women had considered seeking help to change their sexual orientation. Of these, 15 men and 2 women had achieved a change in their sexual orientation." (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1327)

I could not find other information on it, because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted.

But there are a plentiful amount of cases (http://www.newdirection.ca/research/evidence.htm) suggesting that it is possible to change your oreitnation sexually and completely, and what we can cnclude from that is up to you.

Question: Is there anything basic that separates homosexual mentality from normal people's mentality?

"One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite "personal and emotional oversensitivity." (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html)

Conclusion: Homosexuals re much more inclined to mental instability, and perhaps it is even rooted in a more profound question they have concerning identity. The causes are unclear, but regardless of reason, it is present in the society.

[Immortal Goat]

And if you were part of a minority that is constantly scrutinized and blatantly hated by your own country, you would be all sunshine and roses? Please. when you said you were going to make a thread about this, I at least thought it would be a compelling read. Try harder next time.

[sadie]

i am of the opinion that most, if not all, so-called "normal" people also have varying degrees of mental disorder.

[Emu]

They do. Everyone has a dirty little secret.

Also, Goat has a point. If there's any increased incidence of mental disroder among homosexuals, it probably stems more from their peer and family reception OF the homosexuality, and not the homosexuality in and of itself. Nearly all of the studies you posted seemed to cite diseases and disorders that are common to people with identity crises (which many homosexuals experience, once again, because of society's attitude toward homosexuals rather than the homosexuality itself. In societies where being gay is the same as being straight, these problems don't occur.)

edit

"One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite "personal and emotional oversensitivity."

Woah, woah, woah, there. Since when is the MMPI "venerable and well-validated?" Most of my psychology teachers won't take MMPIs with more than a grain of salt.

[kahljorn]

Hilarious.
I love things like this.

[Kulturkampf]

Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident, yet still they lead suicidal lifestyles.

Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids.

If you do not find it compelling, it does not concern me; I simply express the way I feel.

[AChimp]

Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident, yet still they lead suicidal lifestyles.

Yeah, except they hid who they truly were and bottling up your emotions causes even more problems in the long run.

In conclusion, you are probably a closet homo yourself.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Forgive me for being lazy, but was this a survey of simply American homosexuals, or is the data a reflection of global trends?

I think it's a fair point that you may find fewer cases of this behavior in countries that may have had longer standing, more liberal laws on homosexual marriage and behavior.

[Kulturkampf]

Some of the sources were Dutch, I remember reading; so I do know it is global, though I would not be surprised if it was more American oriented.

And why would I be a closet homosexual? Sounds like more internet accusations.

[Big Papa Goat]

Also, negroes are naturally predisposed to violence, and jews have a genetic tendency to control the entire world.

[Chojin]

Fascinating! Maybe you can do poor people next!

[carnage]

So they think that someone has to have a mental diffincincy or be suffering an idenaty crisis to be gay wow this so called greatest country in the world has to be one of the most racist and prejudice country out there.

[Spectre X]

Some of the sources were Dutch, I remember reading; so I do know it is global, though I would not be surprised if it was more American oriented.

And why would I be a closet homosexual? Sounds like more internet accusations.

Don't go blaming your idiocy on us Dutch now you filthy xenophobe!

[Kulturkampf]

And typical of the Left Wing:

When an argument is made contrary to their beliefs, they accuse the person of being a xenophobe, a racist, and unsympathetic towards the poor (three different folks!) when we are talking about a serious issue of homosexuality.

I would debate you, but there is NO CONTENT to what you are saying.

Come back when you grow up and learn how to argue.

Are you so ignorant you think you can show up with that kind of crud in place of an argument and make a point?

Let's dicuss this.

[Pub Lover]

No, let's discuss you being a cunt. >:

[Kulturkampf]

No, let's discuss you being a cunt. >:

Perfect.

I say: "Let's have ana ctual debate, an actual dicussion about it as opposed to name calling and off-the-topic verbal abuse."

Reaction:
"Noooo! You're a cunt."

Sounds like a great argument in your defense.

I'll have to remember it for the next time we argue.

[glowbelly]

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

1. i am a woman who has had sex with other women
2. i am a woman who has done loads of drugs in the past
3. i am a woman who had a huge problem with alcohol
4. i am a woman who has been diagnosed with mental problems
5. i am currently on medicine for said mental problems
6. i no longer drink
7. i no longer do drugs
8. i am married to a wonderful man and am raising a beautiful son

your arguments might hold a little more weight if you tried citing sources that weren't so completely anti-gay and deeply rooted in religious belief.

this is as far as i will go with you. there is no reason to argue semantics with a bigot. if you think that gay people are bad, then you don't know enough of them. deviancy is prevalent in all sexual behavior.

get over it.

[sadie]

well said.

i was raised to believe that all homosexuals were sick in the head, mixed up, that they'd simply gone over to the dark side. i was probably 19 before i realized i'd been scammed. it took me at least ten years after that to finally come to terms with the homosexual experiences i'd had as a little girl, with the guilt i'd coated myself in to keep hidden my secret "sins." i had been so sure for so long that i was going to hell. :(

[mburbank]

Kultucrap;

No one wants to talk to you because you write like an idiot. You put sentences together like a blind butcher making Head Cheese and telling himself it's Fois Gras.

Add to that your positioning yourself quite deliberately and solely for negative attention and then whining when no one wants to take up your 'debate'.

You do not cut the mustard. You are not up to scratch. Everyone one here is more than willing to toss around ideas with anyone from any point of view, but no one here wants to spar with a cretin. Fuck off.

[kahljorn]

"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids. "

Yea. I agree entirely, those fucking bastards. They will fuck kids up so bad! I've never met a straight person who does drugs. Obviously the war on drugs is a war on FAGS. I've never met a gay person who wasn't "dependent" on chemicals. I mean, straight people are so awesome. How do they manage to be so great?
I've heard that, in many cases, once a gay man becomes straight he gives up all drugs and stuff.

Also straight people don't drink coca-cola and they only eat organically, no chemicals for them! From what I understand they don't even have seratonin or melatonin in their brains! Those straight people sure are a wonder of evolution, good thing gays weren't having children and fucking up the gene pool eh? ;) ;)

"Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident"

Yea, because nobody was openly gay in the 80's. Gay people are obviously a creation of the 90's. What were we thinking? HOW DID WE MANAGE TO SCREW THINGS UP SO BAD?

" I simply express the way I feel."

You're the only free-spirit left in this world of fags and homosexuals.


Seriously though, I've never met a crazy straight person in my entire life, and let me tell you, I've been in alot of mental institutions! They were all gay! You're totally correct on this issue.

Hey did you hear the greek civilization often had sex with men? In fact, that kinds of stuff has been around for ages. No wonder the greek civilization failed, eh? It's leaders were a bunch of crazy queers! God bless america.

[Emu]

Even if we're willing to allow that there is a higher rate of mental disorder among homosexuals, that still indicates nothing. The first rule of clinical statistics is that correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.

Also, all of the sources you cited are heavily biased and mostly religious. The source you chose closest to a scientific one is NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Their name alone should start ringing bells of bias. Also, according to Wikipedia,

Theories of thereputic methods for changing sexual bias are not endorsed by most professional mental health organizations, such as the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association, anymore.

The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release that in 1999 NARTH President, Charles Socarides, had "run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization's attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued. Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA's policy of non-discrimination and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian, according to Roughton."

On May 17, 1997 NARTH published the results of a two year study involving 860 clients and 200 psychologists and therapists. Mainstream psychological associations called the study "heavily biased", because each of the therapists supplied data only on their "success stories". The organization did not report their success rate at converting patients with a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. They did not make distinction between homosexuals and bisexuals in the program. And did not differentiate between homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals among those leaving. This study has not been accepted to be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

All of your sources are moot.

[kahljorn]

I don't know, I personally found it hilarious that he believed that shit. The internet is such a great thing, idiots can find all kinds of bullshit information to base their ideas off of.

[Ant10708]

Should you really use Wikipedia as an accurate source when mocking other peoples less accurate soruces? Aren't the entires in Wikipedia just submitted by normal people with no real check up on the facts? I didn't even read the quote from Wikipedia I just thinks its funny to cite them as a source when mocking other unreliable sources.

All these studies on homosexuals are a waste of time but it isn't really worth getting angry over.

Carnage has the best post in the thread. I love blaming the entire country of the United States on everything too

[kahljorn]

The bottom of most wikipedia pages have referances.

I think some of the people who post on wikipedia are doctors and such. I have a doctor friend who uses them as a credible source when teaching other people. I don't know if that really speaks for the validity of all of the pages on there, but it should at least clarify that some of the entries are accurate.

[ziggytrix]

Wikipedia has a sort of peer review process for its articles.

[Emu]

People talk about Wikipedia like it's some kind of message board where anyone can write in anything. In theory, yes, you could write whatever you want, but the sheer volume of the traffic Wikipedia gets, coupled with the vast majority of people looking for fair and balanced articles keeps the retards in check. That's why when you look up George W. it doesn't say "FUKC BUSH!!!!!" over and over again.

[kahljorn]

I think they used to have problems with that in the past, so-called "Vandalism". They even warn about it in a few places... I've never seen it before, though.

[derrida]

The result is one of the world's most effective combat pistol cartridges, one that combines very good accuracy with ample stopping power for use against human assailants. You can also fit at least five of these in a child's anus, six if the child is asleep or drugged (as it should be). However the .45 ACP has disadvantages as a combat round. It is a low-velocity round, and thus not effective against body armor. The rounds lack accuracy or velocity at long range. Another drawback is the bullets' large size and greater material costs in manufacturing when compared to the 9 mm Luger cartridge.


At least two of Chandrasekhars colleagues in the astrophysical community have come forward with evidence that the famous scientist and mathematician was in fact a pig who could talk and solve crimes. Chandrasekhars crime-solving efforts were believed key to the success of the Indian independence movement, finally putting to rest the British colonial practice of dressing up as frightful ghosts and monsters from Hindu and Islamic folklore in order to prevent valuable old farmhouses and amusement parks being purchased or enjoyed by Indian nationals.

Unfortunately these only lasted a couple minutes before they were removed. I had one under "China" that stated the subject was actually a code word used by the Kennedy family to denote an outdoor area suitable for light ass play and chess that lasted about a day.

Does anyone want to start a contest? I'm sure the mock community could come up with some good ones.

[Kulturkampf]

(this is the only person who even made a semblance of an argument -- the rest of the people refuse to discuss because they cannot argue against facts from independent studies)

"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids. "

Yea. I agree entirely, those fucking bastards. They will fuck kids up so bad! I've never met a straight person who does drugs. Obviously the war on drugs is a war on FAGS. I've never met a gay person who wasn't "dependent" on chemicals. I mean, straight people are so awesome. How do they manage to be so great?
I've heard that, in many cases, once a gay man becomes straight he gives up all drugs and stuff.

No, but they have a higher rate of chemical dependency as per the study above.

Facts are facts.

Also straight people don't drink coca-cola and they only eat organically, no chemicals for them! From what I understand they don't even have seratonin or melatonin in their brains! Those straight people sure are a wonder of evolution, good thing gays weren't having children and fucking up the gene pool eh? ;) ;)

I am not a vegan. So I am not concerned with any of that organic bit.

"Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident"

Yea, because nobody was openly gay in the 80's. Gay people are obviously a creation of the 90's. What were we thinking? HOW DID WE MANAGE TO SCREW THINGS UP SO BAD?

No, they were generally more in the closet minus major metropolises. Now it is a fad to be gay.

" I simply express the way I feel."

You're the only free-spirit left in this world of fags and homosexuals.

No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual. I will never hide my beliefs, and I will always stand proud and true to the values that I hold.


Seriously though, I've never met a crazy straight person in my entire life, and let me tell you, I've been in alot of mental institutions! They were all gay! You're totally correct on this issue.

Hey did you hear the greek civilization often had sex with men? In fact, that kinds of stuff has been around for ages. No wonder the greek civilization failed, eh? It's leaders were a bunch of crazy queers! God bless america.

First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level (!).

Second, I will make a second post -- I have researched Greek homosexuality and will make the post for you.

Third,

Have a good day.

[Immortal Goat]

You say that no one has made any other worthwhile posts in your thread, and yet your posts are the most worthless in the whole thing.

Seriously, you think that the chemical dependency is simply a symptom of the GAY Virus? Let me learn ya sumthin...

No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual. I will never hide my beliefs, and I will always stand proud and true to the values that I hold.
You said you will never hide your beliefs, and you stand proud in defense of your life choice. What if, however, you were FORCED to hide it, as many homosexuals are? If the country were run by gays, and you were the one having rights taken away left and right, and your family hated you for what you were, I bet you would be a bit more prone to chemical dependency, too.

And for the record, no gay person that I have ever known was addicted to any form of chemical. One really liked to drink, but it wasn't dependence in his case.

As stated before, your entire argument is moot. And also, since this thread was such a collossal disappointment for me, I didn't hold out hope for your new "enlightening" thread. This time, I wasn't disappointed. You delivered exactly what I expected. Drivel.

[Kulturkampf]

You say that no one has made any other worthwhile posts in your thread, and yet your posts are the most worthless in the whole thing.

Seriously, you think that the chemical dependency is simply a symptom of the GAY Virus? Let me learn ya sumthin...

No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual. I will never hide my beliefs, and I will always stand proud and true to the values that I hold.
You said you will never hide your beliefs, and you stand proud in defense of your life choice. What if, however, you were FORCED to hide it, as many homosexuals are? If the country were run by gays, and you were the one having rights taken away left and right, and your family hated you for what you were, I bet you would be a bit more prone to chemical dependency, too.

And for the record, no gay person that I have ever known was addicted to any form of chemical. One really liked to drink, but it wasn't dependence in his case.

As stated before, your entire argument is moot. And also, since this thread was such a collossal disappointment for me, I didn't hold out hope for your new "enlightening" thread. This time, I wasn't disappointed. You delivered exactly what I expected. Drivel.

I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls (LOL).

My argument is moot when I post sources, and you post a personal anecdote?

My arguments are crap and the most worthless, and this is your big comeback agaisnt me?

Come on, son, didn't anyone ever teach you how to use your brain and make an argument? On other message boards I get far superior responses to this, and you are the one who is being arrogant concerning the facts!

I should post links to debates on other message boards -- there actually are some liberals who know how to add 2 and 2 and make an argument, so maybe you could learn from your friends how a debate is conducted. Would you like that?

For fuck's sake, if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a debate, do not even talk.

But I will give you credit: you are superior to the rest of your cronies and their creative, comprehensive arguments against me (LOL).

[Pub Lover]

If you know of other forums that actually have people willing to debate you, why are you here watching us shoot ourselves in the foot?

P.S. We have discussed homosexuality before, but I think those threads were just people calling each other cunts as well.

[Kulturkampf]

Let's not shoot ourselves in the feet.

Let's...

Have discussions.

[executioneer]

"Heterosexual people were older and less likely to describe their ethnicity as White than their gay and lesbian counterparts, whereas the latter were more likely to be in employment."

lol gay people are less likely to be lazy layabouts :eek

[executioneer]

Lesbians and gay men are also 7 times more likely to be the victims of crimes than the average citizen. In response to this overwhelming oppression and homophobia, many lesbian, gays and bisexuals use and alcohol and drugs to cope.


quoting stuff is fun

[glowbelly]

i linked to a bulletin by the american psychiatric association.

your sources are from OPENLY ANTI-GAY AND BLATANTLY RELIGIOUS websites. save for maybe one, i think.

and i think it's hysterical that the one person you chose to argue with was being completely facetious with you.

now i'm going to sit back and watch this kahl/krumperbasket thing unfold. i'm sure it will be entertaining.

[ziggytrix]

I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls (LOL).

My argument is moot when I post sources, and you post a personal anecdote?


Your sources were openly biased, and so are you. It amazes me that you expect to be taken seriously.

Do you think I'd be taken seriously if I were to post peace activist foundation funded study results in a thread about why the miltary is wrong?!

[Emu]

It's not that I can't argue against "independant" sources, it's that I won't. Your sources are openly, obviously and heavily biased in your favor. They use misleading statistics in order to portray a picture that's not there. They link correlation with causation, which is wrong. As with the alcoholism, they don't compare the rate of alcoholism among homosexuals to the rate of alcoholism among heterosexuals. (Unless I missed it, but I'll go look again.)

Edit: Okay, yes, it did. However, now that I look at it again, I see another problem.

The study compares hetero and homosexuals as if they're two isolated populations of equal amounts of people. That's simply not true. If I remember correctly, only about 5% of the population of any given country is honest-to-God homosexual. If you take a population of say (to keep it simple) 1,000 people, and 5% of them are gay, how many people does that leave? 50. (I'm gonna continue to use round numbers to keep it simple, and since I suck at math.) Allowing 50% of those 50 to be alcoholics, that means 25 people are alcoholics and gay.

Now, the study also says that 5% of heterosexual women are alcoholics (that's WOMEN ALONE, as compared to the disconcertingly high number of alcoholic men, which is conveniently not mentioned), that leaves 5% of 950, or about 48 people. The number of alcoholic heterosexual women is actually HIGHER than the number of alcoholic homosexuals, men and women together. But look at that! 50% of homosexuals are alcoholics, but only 5% of heterosexual WOMEN ALONE!

And that's only the part you quoted. I'd like to point out that you conveniently ignore the disclaimer just below the statistic you quoted:

It is important not to assume that homosexuality causes drug or alcohol abuse. When gay men, lesbians and bisexuals internalize society's homophobic attitudes and beliefs, the results can be devastating. Society’s hatred becomes self-hatred. As a minority group, gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are victims of systemic and ongoing oppression. It can lead to feelings of alienation, despair, low self-esteem, self-destructive behaviour and substance abuse. Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals resort to substance abuse as a means to numb the feelings of being different, to relieve emotional pain or to reduce inhibitions about their sexual feelings.

Substance abuse often begins in early adolescence when youth first begin to struggle with their sexual orientation. When surrounded by messages telling you that you are wrong and sick for who you are, eventually you may begin to believe it. Having to hide your identity and deal with homophobic comments and attitudes — often made by unknowing family and friends — can have a profound effect on you. Lesbians and gay men are also 7 times more likely to be the victims of crimes than the average citizen. In response to this overwhelming oppression and homophobia, many lesbian, gays and bisexuals use and alcohol and drugs to cope.

There, it's nice and big so you can read it.

Edit II: Elsewhere on the McGill site you referenced, it says about 10% of the population is estimated to be gay, which seems kind of a liberal estimate to me, but even allowing that the number of gay alcoholics in our imaginary population begins rivalling that of heterosexual women alcoholics alone, which, I'll remind you, doesn't include men, in which the population of alcoholics is considerably greater than that of heterosexual women. Hey, you could argue with those statistics that being male causes alcoholism.

[kahljorn]

"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Like I said, I've been in mental institutions before and most of the crazy people there weren't gay. Most of them were straight. I don't really think real craziness has anything to do with sexual orientation unless you think thinking about fat cocks can change your chemical makeup or brain structure. The only thing I can imagine coming out of it really wouldn't be craziness so much as a bad growth process mostly attributed to enviromental conditions. AKA, you. In fact, in all truth, most homosexuality could probably be related to enviromental conditions, aka you.
If all you're saying is that they are "Emotionally sensitive" we'll have to take a few paths here. First off, "Real men" have this thing with hiding their feelings (which would almost make them seem more sensitive) , everybody knows that, so who knows how emotionally sensitive they are. Secondly, gay people are generally harassed all the time (Everybody gets emotionally sensitive when they are being harassed) and some of them try to be more "Feminine" or open. Females are typically more emotional than males. This could be because they simply aren't psuedo-desensitized and/or because of hormonal reasons, but regardless the possibility that some gays are "Overly sensitive" compared to normal men is so moot in it's entirety it doesn't really require notice. Thirdly, men are more likely to get angry. Anger is emotional sensitivity.

"I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls"

They weren't scientific polls, the supposed scientificness of the poll you posted was already denied. The organization responsible for it has been ousted from the psychiatric community and none of their papers have been published. I understand, in the begining, you thought they were valid and now you are apparantly laughing at it like it's a joke. Nervous tinges.

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

There's some other statistics, I'd post them but some of them have such a long line of VALID referances that I don't want to waste space.

I've known alot of gay people who do drugs, but even more straight people. This could be because i know more straight people than gay people, all i know is EVERYBODY DOES DRUGS. It's not isolated, and you're stupid for thinking so. There's gay bars, and normal bars, and other types of bars.


Let's rip apart your stupid "Sources":

"43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition."

43%, huh? So does that mean the other 57% of bulimic men were straight? Drrrrrp. Jackass. You're so stupid you don't even know how to read, and apparantly neither do the sources you quote.


"Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health," the researchers reported (p. 556)."

Similar levels of social support, eh? Come on, we all know gays and lesbians don't get the same level of social support. For example, gay marriage laws. For example, being made fun of in school and other social situations. Etc. That's funny enough on it's own, but then you add in, "p. 556". Of what? Thanks for the information. You're obviously the copy paste king, same with your other "Sources". In fact, this can't even really be said to be "Your sources" but the sources of whatever source you ripped off.

"63 homosexual men and 14 homosexual women had considered seeking help to change their sexual orientation. Of these, 15 men and 2 women had achieved a change in their sexual orientation."

Geez what a large percentage :rolleyes . Did they try turning straight men gay, too?

"because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted."

Um, actually they did back in the early 1900's when they used EST and other crazy devices to try to turn people straight. Which brings us to you thinking gay people didn't exist before the 90's. Dumbass, here's a link essentially proving that gay people did exist before the 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
Some quotes towards the end, maybe.

Here's the quote of you not knowing that gay people existed before the 90's: "Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident, yet still they lead suicidal lifestyles. "
If you read that page i linked, you'll notice persecution has been going on since studies have begun on it(early 1900's). For example, did you know they did EST(electro static shock therapy) castration, amputation... all kinds of crazy shit. Did you know in some countries they would put you to death? In america you would be imprisoned or incarcerated in a mental institution. In Europe they'd occasionally burn you. Who was it, oscar wilde? Wasn't he exhiled or something from his country for being gay then died shortly after from his over-sensitivity? You just posted an article about how even greece looked down on it. Oh, but wait, persecution wasn't evident. :rolleyes
While you're at it check out, "Reparative therapy".

"But there are a plentiful amount of cases suggesting that it is possible to change your oreitnation sexually and completely, and what we can cnclude from that is up to you. "

Oh really, because i thought you just said, "because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted." (you know except in the early 1900's) hahahahaha. That's pretty funny. I like how you don't know absolutely anything, maybe you should go find another website to quote, but be careful! All i have to do is type your sources into a search engine and i can find which webpages you copy and pasted from, jackass. Like your other post where like three of the "Sources" were from the same book and you only sourced one of them for some stupid reason, mostly because the one you did source was sourced on the webpage EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids."

Hilarious considering you said something like 45% of men and 33% of straight women did drugs:
"as contrasted with 45% and 33% of the straight men and women, respectively."
According to your policy almost half of the population of straight males are, "no good for raising kids" and a third of the population of women. That makes for alot of orphans, eh?

"Some of the sources were Dutch, I remember reading; so I do know it is global"

Wow two countries makes it global. And yea, there's other countries who hate gays too, and some of them were in europe. DOUBLE TAKE.

"No, but they have a higher rate of chemical dependency as per the study above."

Higher percentage rate, right? Because there's probably more straight people, there's probably more straight people doing drugs and beating their children.

"Facts are facts."

Studies and statistics aren't facts, jackass. Don't you know how to think?

"I am not a vegan. So I am not concerned with any of that organic bit. "

What the fuck does that matter? There's still chemicals in coca-cola and nearly every type of refined or processed foods. And yes, they do have palpable bodily effects. That's why people drink caffinated drinks.

"No, they were generally more in the closet minus major metropolises."

Read above study, listen to David bowie or that one lesbian bitch. Gays did in fact exist before then. "Minus the major metropolises" you say. Oh, okay. So because they were in the closet in a place where they were more oppressed(and to this day are still more oppressed because there are lots of stories about people being beaten to death, to this day) it means they didn't exist nor were open. Could that non-openness have anything to do with the oppression? Could the "Fads" that came around after the 70's have anything to do with all the gay movements and the fact that it was removed from the list of mental diseases? Could the even more recent fad of the 90's be because it was recently removed from another list? I don't know. Just speculating.
How old are you? Obviously not very old.

"No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual."

Why are you an anti-homosexual? Give me one good reason.

"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Untrue. Maybe back in the day when they were molesting them with their instruments trying to turn them straight, but not so much anymore. And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints or the way they were born? Where do you draw the correlation, and where's your data supporting it.

All of your data is impartial and biased. it's complete bullshit. You act like gays were never oppressed before, you're so ridiculously stupid. So far everything you've said has been untrue or absolutely retarded in and of itself or even completely contradictory. You accuse others of making a poor argument, but yours was the easiest to pull apart in a long time.

[kahljorn]

Before feminization and women's rights and all that women did not exist and were not openly women. They were still closet women, because of this they were not prosecuted. Thought I should throw that in there.

[Ant10708]

Who cares if homosexuals drink anyways? The entire British population(exaggeration) are alcoholics.

[Kulturkampf]

I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls (LOL).

My argument is moot when I post sources, and you post a personal anecdote?


Your sources were openly biased, and so are you. It amazes me that you expect to be taken seriously.

Do you think I'd be taken seriously if I were to post peace activist foundation funded study results in a thread about why the miltary is wrong?!

They were openly anti-gay, of course, but they used previous studies in their citations. They were clearly and factually cited from other studies, and documented. Hence the paranthesis and references to other studies throughout many of the reports.

Naturally, activist groups and foundations are the ones inclined to post these studies on the internet and publicize the information. Others aren't. They are scientists doing studies, and they publish them objectively, and then an activist site exploits the information.

That is the modus operandi.

Find me somethhing in the source that talks about how these studies were conducted by non-objective sources.

[Kulturkampf]

It's not that I can't argue against "independant" sources, it's that I won't. Your sources are openly, obviously and heavily biased in your favor. They use misleading statistics in order to portray a picture that's not there. They link correlation with causation, which is wrong. As with the alcoholism, they don't compare the rate of alcoholism among homosexuals to the rate of alcoholism among heterosexuals. (Unless I missed it, but I'll go look again.)

(look at argument above)

Edit: Okay, yes, it did. However, now that I look at it again, I see another problem.

The study compares hetero and homosexuals as if they're two isolated populations of equal amounts of people. That's simply not true. If I remember correctly, only about 5% of the population of any given country is honest-to-God homosexual. If you take a population of say (to keep it simple) 1,000 people, and 5% of them are gay, how many people does that leave? 50. (I'm gonna continue to use round numbers to keep it simple, and since I suck at math.) Allowing 50% of those 50 to be alcoholics, that means 25 people are alcoholics and gay. [/quote]

I understand your point.

But do you know the methodology of the studies, or are you just grasping at straws?

It is important not to assume that homosexuality causes drug or alcohol abuse. When gay men, lesbians and bisexuals internalize society's homophobic attitudes and beliefs, the results can be devastating. Society’s hatred becomes self-hatred. As a minority group, gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are victims of systemic and ongoing oppression. It can lead to feelings of alienation, despair, low self-esteem, self-destructive behaviour and substance abuse. Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals resort to substance abuse as a means to numb the feelings of being different, to relieve emotional pain or to reduce inhibitions about their sexual feelings.

Substance abuse often begins in early adolescence when youth first begin to struggle with their sexual orientation. When surrounded by messages telling you that you are wrong and sick for who you are, eventually you may begin to believe it. Having to hide your identity and deal with homophobic comments and attitudes — often made by unknowing family and friends — can have a profound effect on you. Lesbians and gay men are also 7 times more likely to be the victims of crimes than the average citizen. In response to this overwhelming oppression and homophobia, many lesbian, gays and bisexuals use and alcohol and drugs to cope.

It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature. And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

Edit II: Elsewhere on the McGill site you referenced, it says about 10% of the population is estimated to be gay, which seems kind of a liberal estimate to me, but even allowing that the number of gay alcoholics in our imaginary population begins rivalling that of heterosexual women alcoholics alone, which, I'll remind you, doesn't include men, in which the population of alcoholics is considerably greater than that of heterosexual women. Hey, you could argue with those statistics that being male causes alcoholism.

You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.

[Emu]

It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.

Do you mean gross in terms of "icky" or gross in terms of a large number of sexual acts? Because neither of those are true. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is no more true of homosexuals than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual (but no less, mind you).

What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.

That argument is not factual. It is not that men are "more inclined" to alcoholism. It's not some kind of flaw on the Y chromosome that makes men drink, which you seem to think it is. Because men have a higher occurrance of alcoholism does not mean that they are more inclined to it.

Let's summarize my point with a thought experiment. It is a fact that the number of suicides per year varies positively with the amount of precipitation in British Columbia. Why is that?

When is the precipitation in B.C. highest? During the winter months. It is also a fact that suicides are higher during the winter months due to a number of factors: Holiday depression, Seasonal Affect Disorder, and depression due to said disorder. Does that mean the precipitation caused the suicides? Of course not. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

I don't pretend that correlations don't exist. I haven't said that once. I've said it at least 10 times in this thread:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

[ziggytrix]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[derrida]

Kulturkampf: What exactly is so gross about homos fags and gays? My girlfriend sucks cock but I still love her and think she's not disgusting. Do you have a girlfriend? Is she nice?

Many people who actually follow through on homosexual desires and fantasies are hedonists, otherwise they might decide that the risk of social rejection is simply too high a price for momentary pleasure, and sublimate their urges through paraphilias or aversive self-conditioning. Thus we get a larger percentage of honest-to-god cocksuckers who go a little too heavy on the toot and apple martinis, or whatever they drink.

[ziggytrix]

You're wasting your time if you're actually attempting to communicate with him. He's already discerned that the false cause and cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies are just liberal slanders for his very factual arguments.

[derrida]

There was an actual argument in that post? I thought he was just sharing his opinion, which he stands by proud and true!

[Big Papa Goat]

I think I've said this as a joke before to various pissants, but for serious kulturkampf, you might consider the anus.com forums as more appropriate for your wild and contreversial philosophical views.
unless you just want to be a dick, in which case, carry on.

[Kulturkampf]

It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.

Do you mean gross in terms of "icky" or gross in terms of a large number of sexual acts? Because neither of those are true. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is no more true of homosexuals than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual (but no less, mind you).

There are studies:

"A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers seems to back Wilkins’ claims.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found." (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17151)


What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.

Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

No, homosexuals.

And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.

It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.

I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.

You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.

That argument is not factual. It is not that men are "more inclined" to alcoholism. It's not some kind of flaw on the Y chromosome that makes men drink, which you seem to think it is. Because men have a higher occurrance of alcoholism does not mean that they are more inclined to it.

Men have higher occurrence of alcoholism, and so... They are more likely to be alcoholics. And alcoholics are of course far more likely to be drunk drivers, commit crimes while intoxicated (due to a lack of inhibitions, etc.).

How are men not more inclined to do something if there is a higher occurrence?

Are you so left wing you forgot basic principles of science?

"4 out of 10 black birds swoop down on their pray from above, and only 1 out of 20 red birds are inclined to do this."

Is it wrong to say that black birds are inclined to swoop down on their pray?

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Let's summarize my point with a thought experiment. It is a fact that the number of suicides per year varies positively with the amount of precipitation in British Columbia. Why is that?

When is the precipitation in B.C. highest? During the winter months. It is also a fact that suicides are higher during the winter months due to a number of factors: Holiday depression, Seasonal Affect Disorder, and depression due to said disorder. Does that mean the precipitation caused the suicides? Of course not. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Yes.

Now tell me, what is the correlation for men to be drinkers and more inclined to alcoholism than women...?

A difference exists, and regardless of the cause, there is a difference.

From the example you provided, we can conclude there'll be more suicides in winter months, because that is where the direct evidence points.

From the example of homosexuals blatantly confessing a higher inclination to drug abuse... we can say that they will abuse drugs more.

What is the cause? We can debate that. I would agree, it is probably due to people not accepting their devious ways, that they turn to drugs alcoholism.

But the fact remains.

I don't pretend that correlations don't exist. I haven't said that once. I've said it at least 10 times in this thread:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Correlations do exist, and whatever the cause is irrelevent because the facts have been spelled out and yu refuse to accept them.

[Kulturkampf]

Kulturkampf: What exactly is so gross about homos fags and gays? My girlfriend sucks cock but I still love her and think she's not disgusting. Do you have a girlfriend? Is she nice?

Yes, I have a girlfriend... I might marry her before the year is through. She is not nice, she's like me: a bigot. LOL.

Many people who actually follow through on homosexual desires and fantasies are hedonists, otherwise they might decide that the risk of social rejection is simply too high a price for momentary pleasure, and sublimate their urges through paraphilias or aversive self-conditioning. Thus we get a larger percentage of honest-to-god cocksuckers who go a little too heavy on the toot and apple martinis, or whatever they drink.

Interesting analysis.

Sounds like these drug-using, homosexual hedonists would be superb parents. I think we should let them adopt, don't you?

[Kulturkampf]

"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Like I said, I've been in mental institutions before and most of the crazy people there weren't gay. Most of them were straight. I don't really think real craziness has anything to do with sexual orientation unless you think thinking about fat cocks can change your chemical makeup or brain structure. The only thing I can imagine coming out of it really wouldn't be craziness so much as a bad growth process mostly attributed to enviromental conditions. AKA, you. In fact, in all truth, most homosexuality could probably be related to enviromental conditions, aka you.
If all you're saying is that they are "Emotionally sensitive" we'll have to take a few paths here. First off, "Real men" have this thing with hiding their feelings (which would almost make them seem more sensitive) , everybody knows that, so who knows how emotionally sensitive they are. Secondly, gay people are generally harassed all the time (Everybody gets emotionally sensitive when they are being harassed) and some of them try to be more "Feminine" or open. Females are typically more emotional than males. This could be because they simply aren't psuedo-desensitized and/or because of hormonal reasons, but regardless the possibility that some gays are "Overly sensitive" compared to normal men is so moot in it's entirety it doesn't really require notice. Thirdly, men are more likely to get angry. Anger is emotional sensitivity.

thanks for your anecdotal rant that is....

irrelevent.

"I been to a mental institute and I met a lot of straight people, and I think gays aren't feminine, they are just open and sensitive, and etc. etc."

Superb!

I am not sure where the argument is. Let's try to be more concise and brief, to the point.

"I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls"

They weren't scientific polls, the supposed scientificness of the poll you posted was already denied. The organization responsible for it has been ousted from the psychiatric community and none of their papers have been published. I understand, in the begining, you thought they were valid and now you are apparantly laughing at it like it's a joke. Nervous tinges.
They do not write papers, they compile evidence and data. You are a joke. Look at the sources.

First one cites a study done by Chicago university researchers.

Seocnd, third, and fourth all reference other external studies. etc. I could go through them all, but that is your job.

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

There's some other statistics, I'd post them but some of them have such a long line of VALID referances that I don't want to waste space.

(kind of like mine)

I've known alot of gay people who do drugs, but even more straight people. This could be because i know more straight people than gay people, all i know is EVERYBODY DOES DRUGS. It's not isolated, and you're stupid for thinking so. There's gay bars, and normal bars, and other types of bars.

I love the personal anecdotes.


Let's rip apart your stupid "Sources":

"43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition."

43%, huh? So does that mean the other 57% of bulimic men were straight? Drrrrrp. Jackass. You're so stupid you don't even know how to read, and apparantly neither do the sources you quote.

Wow, you got me; it is not like homosexuals make up 50% of the population -- JACKASS. 43% of bulimics are homosexuals, and what percent of people are homosexuals? Very few. Not even the 10% figure that is always cited. (http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html)

Learn something.


"Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health," the researchers reported (p. 556)."

Similar levels of social support, eh? Come on, we all know gays and lesbians don't get the same level of social support. For example, gay marriage laws. For example, being made fun of in school and other social situations. Etc. That's funny enough on it's own, but then you add in, "p. 556". Of what? Thanks for the information. You're obviously the copy paste king, same with your other "Sources". In fact, this can't even really be said to be "Your sources" but the sources of whatever source you ripped off.

They are quotes form a book that I got from the website, mate. Youshould learn something about quoting.

And I am the copy-paste king, so you will lose this debate.

When your argument resorts to: "Come on!, come on, we all know gays and lesbians don't get the same level of social support...." and then we trail of into marriage laws and bullying at school.

Gays in my school stuck with their own crowds and were not persecuted, generally they were left alone; I am not sure what their family lives were like. But, a psychologist came to a conclusion and worte such a report.

"63 homosexual men and 14 homosexual women had considered seeking help to change their sexual orientation. Of these, 15 men and 2 women had achieved a change in their sexual orientation."

Geez what a large percentage :rolleyes . Did they try turning straight men gay, too?

It was of a sample, dumbass; of 656 and 43. I hae neve rknown anyone to say "I need help changing my sexual orientation." And so te very idea that such a large amount of people would seek as much is absurd to me. That is nearly 10% of homosexual men asking to be made straight -- sounds like a crisis of identity in many senses, a degree of uncertainty in self.

"because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted."

Um, actually they did back in the early 1900's when they used EST and other crazy devices to try to turn people straight. Which brings us to you thinking gay people didn't exist before the 90's. Dumbass, here's a link essentially proving that gay people did exist before the 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
Some quotes towards the end, maybe.

I never said gay people din't exist, 'dumbass.' No large scale studies have been conducted on the percentages of homosexuals who have a desire to change their orientation, etc.

Here's the quote of you not knowing that gay people existed before the 90's: "Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident, yet still they lead suicidal lifestyles. "

You don't know the nuances of words. Are you 15?

Of course I do know homosexuals existed before the nineties, I noted that they were probably in the closet. "Dumbass."



If you read that page i linked, you'll notice persecution has been going on since studies have begun on it(early 1900's). For example, did you know they did EST(electro static shock therapy) castration, amputation... all kinds of crazy shit. Did you know in some countries they would put you to death? In america you would be imprisoned or incarcerated in a mental institution. In Europe they'd occasionally burn you. Who was it, oscar wilde? Wasn't he exhiled or something from his country for being gay then died shortly after from his over-sensitivity? You just posted an article about how even greece looked down on it. Oh, but wait, persecution wasn't evident. :rolleyes
While you're at it check out, "Reparative therapy".

If you were in the closet, there would not be persecution.

And this is not about the terrible things that have been done to people historically, so lay off.

"But there are a plentiful amount of cases suggesting that it is possible to change your oreitnation sexually and completely, and what we can cnclude from that is up to you. "

Oh really, because i thought you just said, "because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted." (you know except in the early 1900's) hahahahaha. That's pretty funny. I like how you don't know absolutely anything, maybe you should go find another website to quote, but be careful! All i have to do is type your sources into a search engine and i can find which webpages you copy and pasted from, jackass. Like your other post where like three of the "Sources" were from the same book and you only sourced one of them for some stupid reason, mostly because the one you did source was sourced on the webpage EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

... .... ... ... ... ...
... ... .... .... .... ....
.. ...... ... ..... ... ......
Did you just realize I was ... copying off of webpages... just now... and did not know... I was providing hyperlinks to each of these webpages or what are you trying to communicate, cunt?
.... ...... ........ .......... .
.... ....... ......... ...... .
....................................

"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids."

Hilarious considering you said something like 45% of men and 33% of straight women did drugs:
"as contrasted with 45% and 33% of the straight men and women, respectively."
According to your policy almost half of the population of straight males are, "no good for raising kids" and a third of the population of women. That makes for alot of orphans, eh?

It was not as high of a percentage. "Dumbass."

"Some of the sources were Dutch, I remember reading; so I do know it is global"

Wow two countries makes it global. And yea, there's other countries who hate gays too, and some of them were in europe. DOUBLE TAKE.

What? Hahahahaha.

"No, but they have a higher rate of chemical dependency as per the study above."

Higher percentage rate, right? Because there's probably more straight people, there's probably more straight people doing drugs and beating their children.

"Facts are facts."

Studies and statistics aren't facts, jackass. Don't you know how to think?

Then what are facts?

"I am not a vegan. So I am not concerned with any of that organic bit. "

What the fuck does that matter? There's still chemicals in coca-cola and nearly every type of refined or processed foods. And yes, they do have palpable bodily effects. That's why people drink caffinated drinks.

I just said I was not a vegan in response to some other post... What are.... okay.

"No, they were generally more in the closet minus major metropolises."

Read above study, listen to David bowie or that one lesbian bitch. Gays did in fact exist before then. "Minus the major metropolises" you say. Oh, okay. So because they were in the closet in a place where they were more oppressed(and to this day are still more oppressed because there are lots of stories about people being beaten to death, to this day) it means they didn't exist nor were open. Could that non-openness have anything to do with the oppression? Could the "Fads" that came around after the 70's have anything to do with all the gay movements and the fact that it was removed from the list of mental diseases? Could the even more recent fad of the 90's be because it was recently removed from another list? I don't know. Just speculating.
How old are you? Obviously not very old.

You actually said something that deserves a response:

I am 21.

how old are you?

"No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual."

Why are you an anti-homosexual? Give me one good reason.

It's a devious lifestyle that spreads diseases and is repugnant.

"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Untrue. Maybe back in the day when they were molesting them with their instruments trying to turn them straight, but not so much anymore. And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints or the way they were born? Where do you draw the correlation, and where's your data supporting it.

Continue arguing against fact.

I want to hear more of your personal anecdotes.

All of your data is impartial and biased. it's complete bullshit. You act like gays were never oppressed before, you're so ridiculously stupid. So far everything you've said has been untrue or absolutely retarded in and of itself or even completely contradictory. You accuse others of making a poor argument, but yours was the easiest to pull apart in a long time.[size=18][/size

Find me some data that contradicts it that is not importail, and not bias, "jackass."

[Immortal Goat]

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."


So, basically, your argument is that you will do your damndest to persecute these people to the point of drug addiction to simply prevent them from being able to adopt. Gotcha.

[Kulturkampf]

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."


So, basically, your argument is that you will do your damndest to persecute these people to the point of drug addiction to simply prevent them from being able to adopt. Gotcha.

Yes.

[Immortal Goat]

And therefor, based on numerous studies of your posts, and comparing them to other posts made by other members, I conclude that you are more inclined to irrational hatred towards other human beings, and therefor ill-suited for having children.

See how that works? I don't like you, so you shouldn't have kids. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't have kids.

I will readily admit that drug addicts and alcoholics shouldn't raise kids, but I also believe that bigots shouldn't raise them, either. Drug addiction and bigotry are both dangerous, bigotry even more so than addiction. Drug addiction has never caused international wars. Drug addiction has never caused the complete enslavement of a particular race in a country.

Bigotry is one of the most dangerous of man's inventions, and you seem to be full up on it. Is that really a suitable environment for children? A household where they will be taught that there are people out there that are subhuman? Kids will be kids, and kids are naturally violent. They will quite possibly actively beat homosexuals, thinking they are doing society a favor.

As I said, that is no place to raise a child. It's just too risky.

[Kulturkampf]

And therefor, based on numerous studies of your posts, and comparing them to other posts made by other members, I conclude that you are more inclined to irrational hatred towards other human beings, and therefor ill-suited for having children.

See how that works? I don't like you, so you shouldn't have kids. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't have kids.

I will readily admit that drug addicts and alcoholics shouldn't raise kids, but I also believe that bigots shouldn't raise them, either. Drug addiction and bigotry are both dangerous, bigotry even more so than addiction. Drug addiction has never caused international wars. Drug addiction has never caused the complete enslavement of a particular race in a country.

What about the Native Americans? Many can argue that they are slaves to the bottle.

Bigotry is one of the most dangerous of man's inventions, and you seem to be full up on it. Is that really a suitable environment for children? A household where they will be taught that there are people out there that are subhuman? Kids will be kids, and kids are naturally violent. They will quite possibly actively beat homosexuals, thinking they are doing society a favor.

As I said, that is no place to raise a child. It's just too risky.

Aw, well, I am sorry that you think my kids will turn into vicious folks who hand out ass-beatings.

I will teach my kids my ideas, and I will have many kids, and my kids will have their own kids, and maybe somewhere along the line the chain will be broken s it is anywhere, but before it is, there will be many conservatives with Spartan ethics.

The culture war isn't over.

And we are going to beat you.

[Pub Lover]

I could go through them all, but that is your job.
It's your opponent's responsibility to show that your sources are fair & balanced when it's the job of pundits & activists, which you largely quote, to force bias & take out of context any real study?

The culture war isn't over.

And we are going to beat you.
Shouldn't we take out the Muslims & Chinese first?

[glowbelly]

:lol he's a fucking skinhead

[Immortal Goat]

What about the Native Americans? Many can argue that they are slaves to the bottle.
First you claim that the majority of gay people are drug addict alcoholics, which is admittedly caused by people like you on purpose, and now you are trying to claim that all Native Americans are alcoholics, too? Where are your "sources" on that one, huh?

I will teach my kids my ideas, and I will have many kids, and my kids will have their own kids, and maybe somewhere along the line the chain will be broken s it is anywhere, but before it is, there will be many conservatives with Spartan ethics.

The culture war isn't over.

And we are going to beat you.

:lol SPARTAN? You're trying to tell me that you are one of the last of an ancient military unit? I take it back, you shouldn't have kids, not because you are a bigot, but because you have sich crazy delusions of grandeur!

Oh, and I'm not a liberal. I'm just liberal about this one point. I am actually a moderate, but just to play your game a bit longer (even though I am tired of your 6 year old style of making the rules "I'm right so I win"), I will say this:

Let's look at the definition of "conservative", as presented by one of the very sites you used in your thread against that Greek Gayness that is so prevalent in society today.

Burkean conservatives wish to conserve heritage; they advocate the current social climate. To a Burkean, any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Burkeans do not reject change, as Burke wrote "a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation," but they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary.
So, by definition, you believe that our society is perfect (or at least was when white men could hold black slaves), and should not change? Or is it that it is allowed to change, but nevver due to a revolution (because what good ever came from a revolution anyway, right?)

Can a revolution not be organic? Maybe I am not completely understanding the terms used, but to me, at least, it seems that organic would mean something that evolves within the society for a long period of time, and a revolution (according to this)happens all at once? Preposterous idea. Revolution is an idea that grows within the minds of the citizens for a long time. It begins as agitation, and over many years, possibly decades or even longer, it grows until the idea becomes so big that society has the choice of either accepting the idea or killing those that hold it. Usually, both happen. Societty refuses the change at first, causing war, and then when the idea only burns brighter in the minds of those who hold it, society accepts said change and moves on to the next revolution (which I hear is going to be the next Nintendo product, but that's another story for another forum).

So, looking back at this definition, it seems to me that it is impossible for conservatives to win a culture war because revolution happens naturally. It is the way of the world. And revolutions, whether successful or failure, leave some mark on society. A mark that cannot be gotten rid of.

Oh, and chew on this, my Spartan friend. Rome fell due to staying static (or "conservative") in their ways. When a society refuses to change, corruption sets in, and weakness spreads. The only thing that saved that area is the Christian "Revolution". Now, it seems, a new revolution is needed to clear away much of the corruption and barbarism that has "organically" occurred in our society, much of which you and others like you are responsible for.

It seems you're going to get your wish. America is going to be the New Rome. Too bad that empire fell to barbarians.

[kahljorn]

"They do not write papers, they compile evidence and data. You are a joke. Look at the sources. "

Find me somethhing in the source that talks about how these studies were conducted by non-objective sources.

From wikiepedia, although I do know this isn't in the "Source". (how would you find something in a non-objective source about how it's non-objective, when people are being biased and bitter do they generally go around proclaiming it, especially if they are trying to make 'valid' points..?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narth
I like the part towards the end where it calls them, "Heavily biased".

Read and shut the fuck up. You don't even know what you're talking about, it's so hilarious. I bet everytime you post you get more and more embarassed. Sure, all of your posts might not be from the same study, but it just goes to show that you post your studies without knowing any information about their validity. More than likely, you just went around and collected any studies that you felt were significant to your cause. This essentially shows that you're a stupid fuck, and your argument is just as lazy and poorly put together as your mind.


"I am not sure where the argument is. Let's try to be more concise and brief, to the point. "

Craziness has nothing to do with homosexuality. If ANY kind of craziness were to result DIRECTLY from it, it would be more of a neurosis caused by external stimuli. For your example you picked bulimia(which is purely external stimuli). Let's see who's, "At risk" according to wikipedia:

# Gay Males
# students who are under heavy workloads
# those who have suffered traumatic events in their lifetime such as child abuse and sexual abuse[b]
[b]# those positioned in the higher echelons of the socioeconomic scale
# the highly intelligent and/or high-achievers.

Again, external stimuli. Hell, according to that most of the people who are bulimic are probably smarter than you. I wonder if it's saying gays are smarter than you? Probably. Yes, i did pretty much just cut and paste the relevant parts. (gays are smarter than you)

You also posted something about emotional oversensitivity. I merely motioned that males are also emotionally sensitive. Like you, overly emotionally sensitive towards gays. Who knows, sometime soon you could become bulimic. I also mentioned this because you posted studies about "Gays" being "more emotionally sensitive" than normal men like it had some kind of relevance. I merely mentioned that that has more to do with CONDITIONING than anything else.

"hey do not write papers, they compile evidence and data."

Yea, real factual data. Did you know they often travel around the world and talk to every gay and straight male in the entire world just so the study can be absolutely true? Did you know they also compile in sociological and cultural data to compare it to? You just don't get that these studies are cheap. Rather than attributing them to social or cultural reasons (like any good scientist would do) they immediatly blame it on the gays(or at least, that's what you think since you apparantly didn't read them). That would sort of be like if there was a meterologist on tv who said, "Look, obviously these hurricanes are caused by Earth. We've pissed it off. Now we need to bring it special ceremonial virgins to throw into the volcano."
Use your brain, what did you post of this study? Nothing, some figures. Some numbers, nothing more. What the fuck kind of "Science" looks for shit like that? They aren't even real numbers because it's just a small piece of the pie. Real science takes "Numbers" then looks for things that "Causes" those numbers. Those "Experiments" had nothing to them other than the inclination to harm the gay image or something like that oh no wait they did find a cause and apparantly it was societal exactly what everyone's been saying and you've been arguing with congrats again.
The only use psychological statistics has, psychologically, is in the aid treating patients and finding remedies. Homosexuality isn't treated anymore, because there's no "cure". Sexual orientation is part of a socio-sexual complex developed throughout life manifesting generally within the early teens. It is possible to change that orientation, but generally there has to be an inclination to do so in the first place(the process can also be quite dangerous). So the only relevance these numbers have is for curiousities sake, and apparantly, so you can have something pointless to base your life off of. It doesn't really matter how much you hate gays, they aren't going away. In fact, more than likely people like you are going away.
Speaking of which, the only reason you act like you do is because you want to fit into some social circus tent. I think without it you are probably a very boring and uninteresting person. Therefore, you base most of your spectrum of beliefs and ideas onto that one ideal. I find it hilariously sad.

"First one cites a study done by Chicago university researchers. "

I wonder if that means it was done by Students?

"(kind of like mine)"

Yea, good ol' Narth, kicked out of the psychological scene. That must be such a disgrace.

"Wow, you got me; it is not like homosexuals make up 50% of the population -- JACKASS. 43% of bulimics are homosexuals, and what percent of people are homosexuals?"

Gee you wouldn't say thanks for reminding me. Regardless, the study was done on bulimics, not gays, and more straight males are bulimic than gays.
Also, you can't really know what percentage of the population is gay.

"They are quotes form a book that I got from the website, mate."

I just find it sad that in your "Essays" you don't post relevant information. You post quotes from books, and yet you don't say that they are all from the same book, nor do you give any information about the book. Which, again, makes your essay a poorly thrown together piece of shit full of "Copy and pasting" and not any detail or association. Essentially, what I'm saying is that you are probably so lazy you just copy pasted any pertinent information without going into the details of it. For all we know, everything you post could be impartial or just a downright lie, but apparantly just your interpretation of it is...

"And I am the copy-paste king, so you will lose this debate. "

Perfect logic :rolleyes If only mimicry could win debates past the gradeschool level.

"social support...." and then we trail of into marriage laws and bullying at school."

What do you call "Similar levels of social support" then? Please explain how they receieve the same levels of social support despite having people like you telling them their lifestyle is wrong? Seems pretty insupportive. How many straight people have their marriage rights revoked based on their sexuality? I threw in an etc. there because I figured you were smart enough to fill in the blanks, but apparantly not. Congratulations.

From the page the study was on:

"Additionally, the researchers found that the lesbian participants were the most frequent victims of physical intimidation and violence."
Gee, what social support.
It also says straight males often receive similar levels of harassment at school.
"38% of gay men and 31% of the lesbians admitted having been physically attacked during the preceding five years, with the rates for heterosexual men and women once again being proportionately lower, despite their much larger representation in the population"

"In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems. But they added that they were not suggesting--as did Bailey (1999) in a prominent prior study--that the higher level of mental disorders could be because homosexuality might constitute a "developmental error."
Could that be exactly what i said, on both accounts? Maybe you should look at that other study, if it's perverted enough you might be able to use it towards your goals

"It was of a sample, dumbass; of 656 and 43. I hae neve rknown anyone to say "I need help changing my sexual orientation." And so te very idea that such a large amount of people would seek as much is absurd to me. That is nearly 10% of homosexual men asking to be made straight -- sounds like a crisis of identity in many senses, a degree of uncertainty in self. "

Um, okay, then why even continue bitching? If the idea of that many gay people trying to become straight is absurd, what's your goal? To continue bitching and make points? Obviously they are going to have absolutely no effect. Secondly, you think 10% of the entire population of gay people took part in one single study? You're ridiculous.
A degree of uncertainty of self you say, could that have anything to do with social pressure and possibly family pressure, making them feel like if only they weren't the way they are they could be happy? "If only my nose wasn't so big! Then people would love me!" "If only I wasn't mentally retarded, then I would have friends". Come on man, do you ever think? I'm sure you've done the same thing before in some circumstance.

"I never said gay people din't exist, 'dumbass.'"

I couldn't be being sarcastic, could I? But you did say that before the 90's they were all in the closet, which was obviously proven wrong since they somehow had tons of them in mental institutions to electricute on a daily basis. Remember the end of requiem for a dream, where they keep shocking her and she gets crazier and crazier? It's basically treatment like that.
So yes, before the 90's gays WERE persecuted. I'd like to see you admit you were wrong on that, because you obviously were. Do you feel like a jackass at all? Jackass jackass jackass jackass jackasssss. :) I like arguing with you, it's so easy.

"You don't know the nuances of words. Are you 15? Of course I do know homosexuals existed before the nineties, I noted that they were probably in the closet. "Dumbass." "

I find all of that hilarious especially considering you didn't get the sarcasm/exageration/"Nuance" about gays not existing to be persecuted. And again, they weren't in the closet because there was tons of gay people in the 80's. God, haven't you ever watched an 80's movie or anything? I mean shit, the rocky horror picture show was made in 1975, and that's like one of the gayest things in the world.
Obviously you were wrong about the closet statement. Being 21 makes sense, because you don't seem to know anything about the time period before the 90's. I find it hilarious because it shows how dumb you are, you spend all your time trying to find "Data" on gays and miss so damn much, and look like such a fool.

"If you were in the closet, there would not be persecution. "

No, just the depression of never being sexually satisfied or accepted as who you are. That's a great idea, give them more psychological issues. Generally, that's why people come "out of the closet". Being, "In the closet" generally means you're living in FEAR of being yourself. Again, good job persecuting/oppressing with your mighty ideas, oh lord of psychology.

"And this is not about the terrible things that have been done to people historically"

Then maybe you shouldn't bring up the "Fact" that they weren't persucted before the 90's because they were all in the closet, you dumb fucking cunt. :lol Don't bring up history if you don't want the actual truth on it, you dilusional twit.

"I was providing hyperlinks to each of these webpages or what are you trying to communicate, cunt? "

No, i could tell they were links. I was mainly talking about how you didn't really talk about the book you were getting all your ideas from. The other sites i was talking about i was guessing were probably sites(forums) you got the inspiration to learn about the book in the first place. There was only like 12 mentionings of that book on the entire internet, all of them white supremist or gay-hating.
I also couldn't find any of the stuff the book itself was supposidely quoting, although I do know the way that guy squeezed out of alot of potential law problems was by calling people gay. Which kind of makes anything he would've said on the topic pointless because it was all watching out for his asshole. Quite literally, perhaps ;/

"It was not as high of a percentage."
"so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids"

HAHAHAHAH this is great, this is where your ideas and hypocricies really start to fall apart. You say gays aren't good for raising kids because they do drugs and have psychological problems, however, alot of straight people have the SAME EXACT problem. If your logic was true you'd be saying that STRAIGHT PEOPLE CANT DO IT EITHER.
Besides, there's more straight people than gay people, so that 45% is a huge fucking number who are shitty parents.
I love this part of debates. Thank you, you just made my day complete. :)

"What? Hahahahaha. "

I'm glad you got the joke of how stupid you sound, but just in case you didn't I'll make it easier to see:
Some of the sources were Dutch so I do know it is global

"Then what are facts? "

Facts are real things that actually occur. For example, the numbers within the study itself may be a semblance of fact(and a very poor one considering), however, any ideas or results from it are unknown to be absolutely true. This is why when reading studies like this you often see phrases like, "This may indicate".

"You actually said something that deserves a response: "

Really because i saw a long line of responses before i got to this one.

"It's a devious lifestyle that spreads diseases and is repugnant."

Last i heard the statistics on aids was that women were more likely to contract it. Even more likely than gay males.

"Continue arguing against fact. "

They aren't facts, remember? And also, my response was pretty much the result that the studies you yourself posted suggested. I find that hilarious. You're the one arguing against facts. I'll post it again so you can revel in it:
"In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems."
Here's what i said, in case you forget:
"And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints"

Did I win some points there? I certainly hope so, because your "Facts" are those "Studies" and those "Studies" are "Concluding" exactly what I "Said". So you're the one arguing against facts, buster jones.

"Find me some data that contradicts it that is not importail, and not bias, "jackass.""

Um, I did above when i posted how the study itself said that it was a societal thing. Essentially, that people like you cause them to be shitty. :) Basically, you are the cause of the thing you hate. You're kind of like them in a way, you are like their whorish mother who continually pops out babies for welfare money. Well, I hope you can buy enough cake with that EBT money to fill your gluttonous face with, you corpulent expression of your own angsty supposed virtues.

"Sounds like these drug-using, homosexual hedonists would be superb parents."

Did you know they often allow child molesters to adopt? Yes, it's true. When going through the process of adopting a child they do absolutely no background check, drug tests or anything else like that. I hope you can recognize the sarcasm in that.
Luckily when straight people get knocked up they do all kinds of tests to make sure the mother's not a crackhead. That's why there's no crackheads or babies born deformed :)

Since you have problems catching "Nuances", or sarcasm, the above was indeed sarcasm. They don't just adopt babies out to anyone, i find the idea that you think so absurd. You're obviously a fucking idiot.

"Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature."

Didn't you recently say that the "Gay trend" is getting worse and worse? Yea, it will probably continue to get worse. It's just like the women's movement, or the black movement, or any other movement that's around. You should just sit back and let the cards fall, because no matter how hard you try you're not going to change that.

[Emu]

There are studies:

"A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers seems to back Wilkins’ claims.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found." (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17151)


Do you even read the posts or do you just skim them? You pull up yet another biased source (The "Baptist Press.") Try getting a source from a respectable organization, like the NIMH or the American Psychiatric Association instead of an obviously and blatantly Christian and Bible-based source. You're probably going to argue that the BP isn't biased. Well, here, let me explain why it is:

A 15-page majority opinion by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last year avoided several issues that conservatives say should be confronted before the nation embraces same-sex "marriage."

Every time the article writes the word marriage, it puts it in quotes, in obvious contempt. This indicates that the author of the article set out with an anti-homosexual agenda; clearly biased against them and highly likely to misinterpret the facts in their favor.

"Even men and women who are homosexual and have been involved in homosexuality for years have told me frankly that they know of few if any long-term relationships -- male or female," he told BP.

Here's a tip: Personal testimony doesn't count as scientific in any respect. If I told you that every black person I knew steals stereos and listens to rap at 2 in the morning, does that mean you can draw any conclusion from it? Even if they told me so themselves?

Evangelicals say that homosexual relationships will never bring satisfaction because, at the core, they involve rebellion against God. Writing in a Crosswalk.com commentary last October, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that marriage is the "culminating picture of creation’s goodness."

"Because of that void [the homosexual] is trying to fill it the wrong way and the only way he knows to fill it is through sexual encounters," Wilkins said. "But after the sexual encounter is over, the emptiness is even larger.

Biased. If you can't see it, you're just another bigot tool.


What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.

So does that mean heterosexual men are inclined to pedophilia? There seems to be a correlation there.

Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).

Wait, this is golden. Please, dear boy, tell me, how did you find out about "bizarre" sexual acts if you haven't done any research on them? I would bet you dollars to donuts that you heard about it either from television, your straight friends, or a religious organization condemning the dangers of these practices. I'm not going to argue that fisting and that gerbil thing don't happen and I'm not going to argue that it's normal or healthy, because I don't believe that it is. However, these acts are rare and blown out of proportion to the point of absurdity, and they are certainly not limited to or indeed more prevelent among homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals. What I'm trying to say here is that these deviances are universal to human sexuality, not homosexuals alone.

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

No, homosexuals.

You didn't answer my question. What's the "nature?" It's beginning to look like you only don't like them because they're gay. Which is of no consequence to you whatsoever.

And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.

The only non-biased source you cited showed the rates in percentages, which I've already shown to be misleading. If you could show this statistic in actual numbers, citing several independent studies, I would be more inclined to believe you.

It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

Think about this for a second. Who persecutes homosexuals? People like you. You, frankly, are personally responsible for the chemical dependencies of homosexuals, if what you say is true. You continue to believe they're sick and perverted, and you chide them for it, which drives them to chemical dependencies. YOU are the one making them behave this way. You can't blame them for something that people like you caused.

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.

Now you're just insulting people because you can't defend your irrational hatred and you know it. This would be sad if it weren't funny.

I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.

I think you're beginning to slide down a slippery slope, here. What exactly do you think is going to happen if we accept homosexual orientation as a natural part of the scheme of human sexuality? If you think it's going to turn kids gay, think again. Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Let's try an experiment to prove it.

If homosexuality is a choice, you should reasonably be able to will yourself to be attracted to men. You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem. Will yourself gay and then go find some pictures of attractive men and see if you become aroused.

I don't know why I wasted my time writing that, since you won't do it, or you'll at least lie about it.

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your argument right now, but I'm desperately awaiting your response. WILL HE DO IT, FOLKS? WILL HE BE GAY FOR AN HOUR? PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!

[kahljorn]

:lol
"You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem."

I can do that :(
According to certain fields of psychology just about everything in the human psyche is malleable, but that's mostly coming from people like John Lily and Timothy Leary. So take it for what you will.
However, something I always found interesting on the subject was their "Reimprinting" ideas. Apparantly they opened a clinic that did stuff like this(it's essentially akin to certain forms of brain washing, i guess) and had a customer who, upon the first time he was having sex, had a police officer knock on the window of his car and scared the shit out of him so he was impotent for umpteen years.
The theory behind that is socio-sexual complexes are generally imprinted on the first sexual experience, but I'm sure they include prior life experience to some degree.
Anyway, once they opened the clinic he came and they apparantly helped, and he was able to get it up again. I'm sure there's a more detailed report out there somewhere.

This guy makes me laugh everytime i think about him, though, he's such a whiner.

[Emu]

Well?

[Pharaoh]

Whether gays are mentally ill or not, I don't think it's good for a child's mental health to have two fathers or two mothers. Being adopted is hard enough to live with without being brought up in such an unnatural family. It makes it quite obvious that the child is adopted and there's no chance for the child to hide the fact if it wants to. It's not fair on the child.

[glowbelly]

my neighbor is divorced. he has two kids. he's gay.

so is his ex-wife.

so who gets the kids NOW, huh?

[Pharaoh]

my neighbor is divorced. he has two kids. he's gay.

so is his ex-wife.

so who gets the kids NOW, huh?

It won't make much difference to them, they're going to be messed up mentally whatever happens. If it's true, that is.

[Immortal Goat]

There are no conclusive unbiased studies stating that the child's mental health will be affected if brought up in a homosexual household.

[Chojin]

Haven't ANY of you seen 'The Birdcage'.

[Immortal Goat]

I've seen most of it, and from what I saw, that kid was completely straight.

[ziggytrix]

Whether gays are mentally ill or not, I don't think it's good for a child's mental health to have two fathers or two mothers. Being adopted is hard enough to live with without being brought up in such an unnatural family. It makes it quite obvious that the child is adopted and there's no chance for the child to hide the fact if it wants to. It's not fair on the child.

How many kids of gay couples do you know?

I know only 1, so that's a pretty piss poor sampling, but he's as or more well adjusted than a lot of kids of straight couples that I know (so to recap, anecdotally, we're looking at a success rate of 100% for the queers vs like 35% for the breeders - pretty damn grim for my team, IMO :( ).

[Pharaoh]

I don't know any children adopted by a gay couple, it's very rare here at the moment. It could be fifty years before we're able to see the consequences of allowing gay adoption.

If the natural mother of a child is gay and brings up the child with her partner then I don't see any problem with that, at least the child will be able to call one of them mum. Likewise with a gay real dad and his partner. If two gay men adopt a child though, which one would be the dad? There'd have to be dad 1 and dad 2, it's weird and not a natural situation for the child. Nobody naturally has two dads.

[Pub Lover]

Nobody can naturally travel to the Moon.

[sadie]

http://www.tvdads.com/images/my2dads.gif

[Pharaoh]

Nobody can naturally travel to the Moon.

Yes, which is why astronauts have to be very psychologically robust.
Isolation and withdrawal from social relationships on Earth is very stressful. Being put in a strange, high-pressure environment can result in anxiety and depression in astronauts.

Children, however, aren't specially chosen for their psychological robustness for adoption by gay couples, and many of them won't be able to cope with such an unusual arrangement. They would be far happier with the usual mother and father arrangement. Although some probably will cope, I'll admit that.

[Spectre X]

Cars aren't natural. Neither are processed meats.

[Pharaoh]

Cars aren't natural. Neither are processed meats.

Yes, they're not, and cars aren't good for the environment are they? Do you think processed meats are as good for your health as organic meat?
I don't think so. So why would you put a child in the unnatural situation of having two gay men as parents? It's not good enough.

[Geggy]

http://www.tvdads.com/images/my2dads.gif

lol :(

[Spectre X]

Cars aren't natural. Neither are processed meats.

Yes, they're not, and cars aren't good for the environment are they? Do you think processed meats are as good for your health as organic meat?
I don't think so. So why would you put a child in the unnatural situation of having two gay men as parents? It's not good enough.

Clothes are unnatural. Solar power is unnatural. Space telescopes are unnatural. As are most breeds of dogs, seeing as humans bred them that way.

Trains are unnatural, houses are unnatural, so are bicycles, unicycles, tricycles and quadricycles. Books are unatural, the internet is unnatural, computers and robots are unnatural, helicopters are unatural, hanggliders are unnatural, toys are unnatural. Knives, scissors, chairs, pagers, phones pens, pencils, monkey wrenches and television shows are all unnatural.

Medicine is unnatural.

[Pharaoh]

Well, let's look at what unnatural really means.

unnatural
adjectiveÂ*
Definitions:
Â*
1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice
an unnatural tense silence between them
2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior
3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained
an unnatural festive atmosphere
4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

You could say a man on the moon is unnatural (1) or processed meats (3) and maybe travelling in cars (4), but you can't just say everything is unnatural. Being unnatural isn't necessarily bad in itself, travelling in a car or watching TV won't harm you but eating unnatural foods and breathing unnatural air isn't so good.
Having two gay men as parents is unnatural and unnecessary and isn't likely to be good for a child.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"not conforming to conventions: behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior"

Is this really a good argument though against gay couples adopting? Your leaps in logic seem to leave a pretty wide gap, IMO.

"Eating mashed potatoes with ketchup is unnatural, so two men shouldn't be able to have kids."

:confused

All the food we eat, even the fake, canned, GMO stuff, is of this planet. It's possible because it's there and we have the ability to do it. You seem to be talking not about what's natural and unnatural, but what's conventional and unconventional. That's a slippery slope to go down if ya ask me. Some other really "natural" and conventional things of their respective times: Blacks counting as 3/5 of a person, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote, blacks and whites using separate bathrooms, segregated schools, etc.

Sometimes mores and folkways are broken because they need to be. I don't think clinging to what's "natural" is the best argument against gay couples adopting.

[Spectre X]

Well, let's look at what unnatural really means.

unnatural
adjectiveÂ*
Definitions:
Â*
1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice
an unnatural tense silence between them
2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior
3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained
an unnatural festive atmosphere
4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

You could say a man on the moon is unnatural (1) or processed meats (3) and maybe travelling in cars (4), but you can't just say everything is unnatural. Being unnatural isn't necessarily bad in itself, travelling in a car or watching TV won't harm you but eating unnatural foods and breathing unnatural air isn't so good.
Having two gay men as parents is unnatural and unnecessary and isn't likely to be good for a child.

Right now you're just trying to desparately wiggle your way out of this thing, but it's not working.

Just quit while you're ahead.

[King Hadas]

Since some animals do practice it doesn't that make homosexuality natural?

[Pharaoh]

I think for some things natural is best and child-rearing is one of them. And I'd say having two gay men as parents is unnatural according to all these definitions: 1, 2, 3 & 4.

1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice

2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior

3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained

4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

It's contary to custom, not conforming to conventions, contrived and contrary to the laws of nature.
Two gay men aren't made to produce children and therefore aren't suitable to bring them up, in my opinion.

[Pharaoh]

Since some animals do practice it doesn't that make homosexuality natural?

Yes maybe it does, but they don't have children from doing it, and other animals don't give them theirs to bring up.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think for some things natural is best and child-rearing is one of them. And I'd say having two gay men as parents is unnatural according to all these definitions: 1, 2, 3 & 4.

1.Â*contrary to expected behavior:Â*contrary to habit, custom, or practice

Well, as I said above, I think this is pretty weak.

2.Â*not conforming to conventions:Â*behaving in ways that contradict conventional assumptions about what constitutes normal or acceptable human behavior

See above.

3.Â*artificial:Â*affected, artificial, contrived, or strained

Strained? Couldn't one argue that the heterosexual marriage is also strained? Doesn't the existence of divorce, single parents, and marriage counseling indicate that there is a strain on all marriage? Would that make the entire institution unnatural?


4.Â*contrary to laws of nature:Â*contrary to the physical laws of nature

Perhaps you could make an argument here, but again, don't heterosexual couples behave in ways that are unsustainable? Just because you can have 12 kids doesn't necessarily mean you should, right? I thought what made humans so special and unique was that our brains allowed us to do things that were contrary to the so-called laws of nature. It probably makes little sense that a person live in Las Vegas, NV or Siberia. That certainly isn't very natural, but we are able to do it because we've found ways to adapt to our surroundings through innovation and technology. A hundred years ago, it probably didn't seem very natural to live past 100. We can do it now, because we've advanced ourselves. Couldn't we look at gay couples adopting children as merely a luxury, one allowable due to our own intellectual advances and superiority....?

It's contary to custom, not conforming to conventions, contrived and contrary to the laws of nature.
Two gay men aren't made to produce children and therefore aren't suitable to bring them up, in my opinion.

Are you writing a book report?

[Kulturkampf]

"They do not write papers, they compile evidence and data. You are a joke. Look at the sources. "

Find me somethhing in the source that talks about how these studies were conducted by non-objective sources.

Read and shut the fuck up. You don't even know what you're talking about, it's so hilarious. I bet everytime you post you get more and more embarassed. Sure, all of your posts might not be from the same study, but it just goes to show that you post your studies without knowing any information about their validity. More than likely, you just went around and collected any studies that you felt were significant to your cause. This essentially shows that you're a stupid fuck, and your argument is just as lazy and poorly put together as your mind.

Oh, an outburst.


"I am not sure where the argument is. Let's try to be more concise and brief, to the point. "

Craziness has nothing to do with homosexuality. If ANY kind of craziness were to result DIRECTLY from it, it would be more of a neurosis caused by external stimuli. For your example you picked bulimia(which is purely external stimuli). Let's see who's, "At risk" according to wikipedia:

# Gay Males
# students who are under heavy workloads
# those who have suffered traumatic events in their lifetime such as child abuse and sexual abuse[b]
[b]# those positioned in the higher echelons of the socioeconomic scale
# the highly intelligent and/or high-achievers.

Again, external stimuli. Hell, according to that most of the people who are bulimic are probably smarter than you. I wonder if it's saying gays are smarter than you? Probably. Yes, i did pretty much just cut and paste the relevant parts. (gays are smarter than you)

Yes, all gays are smarter than me, great argument. But they aren't smarter than you, because you are a real intellectual.

You also posted something about emotional oversensitivity. I merely motioned that males are also emotionally sensitive. Like you, overly emotionally sensitive towards gays. Who knows, sometime soon you could become bulimic. I also mentioned this because you posted studies about "Gays" being "more emotionally sensitive" than normal men like it had some kind of relevance. I merely mentioned that that has more to do with CONDITIONING than anything else.

What conditioning? Do you believe each homosexual is conditioned by his parents to be a homosexual?

"hey do not write papers, they compile evidence and data."

Yea, real factual data. Did you know they often travel around the world and talk to every gay and straight male in the entire world just so the study can be absolutely true? Did you know they also compile in sociological and cultural data to compare it to? You just don't get that these studies are cheap. Rather than attributing them to social or cultural reasons (like any good scientist would do) they immediatly blame it on the gays(or at least, that's what you think since you apparantly didn't read them). That would sort of be like if there was a meterologist on tv who said, "Look, obviously these hurricanes are caused by Earth. We've pissed it off. Now we need to bring it special ceremonial virgins to throw into the volcano."
Use your brain, what did you post of this study? Nothing, some figures. Some numbers, nothing more. What the fuck kind of "Science" looks for shit like that? They aren't even real numbers because it's just a small piece of the pie. Real science takes "Numbers" then looks for things that "Causes" those numbers. Those "Experiments" had nothing to them other than the inclination to harm the gay image or something like that oh no wait they did find a cause and apparantly it was societal exactly what everyone's been saying and you've been arguing with congrats again.

Certainly the polls are not of every homosexual, but enough studies with enough conclusions using enough people heap up some evidence.


The only use psychological statistics has, psychologically, is in the aid treating patients and finding remedies. Homosexuality isn't treated anymore, because there's no "cure". Sexual orientation is part of a socio-sexual complex developed throughout life manifesting generally within the early teens. It is possible to change that orientation, but generally there has to be an inclination to do so in the first place(the process can also be quite dangerous). So the only relevance these numbers have is for curiousities sake, and apparantly, so you can have something pointless to base your life off of. It doesn't really matter how much you hate gays, they aren't going away. In fact, more than likely people like you are going away.

We'll never go away -- not in my lifetime, and not in the lifetime of my kids; you'll die before you see your ideals factualized, in the very least. We are losing the war, but we will still make you uncomfortable because we hate you.

Do you really tink that it is a matter of simply random kids becoming homosexuals, and just a slight alteration with how we are raised? Ridiculous. What is your proof?

Speaking of which, the only reason you act like you do is because you want to fit into some social circus tent. I think without it you are probably a very boring and uninteresting person. Therefore, you base most of your spectrum of beliefs and ideas onto that one ideal. I find it hilariously sad.

Sure, great idea.

"First one cites a study done by Chicago university researchers. "

I wonder if that means it was done by Students?

I don't think a University is going to take credit for studies conducted by kids.

"(kind of like mine)"

Yea, good ol' Narth, kicked out of the psychological scene. That must be such a disgrace.

"Wow, you got me; it is not like homosexuals make up 50% of the population -- JACKASS. 43% of bulimics are homosexuals, and what percent of people are homosexuals?"

Gee you wouldn't say thanks for reminding me. Regardless, the study was done on bulimics, not gays, and more straight males are bulimic than gays.
Also, you can't really know what percentage of the population is gay.

You're stupid. Iam not going to go further down this because it is going to be similar nonsense and I do not have time to waste.

If you want, please put the relevant points in much shorter ways.

[Kulturkampf]

There are studies:

"A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers seems to back Wilkins’ claims.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found." (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17151)


Do you even read the posts or do you just skim them? You pull up yet another biased source (The "Baptist Press.") Try getting a source from a respectable organization, like the NIMH or the American Psychiatric Association instead of an obviously and blatantly Christian and Bible-based source. You're probably going to argue that the BP isn't biased. Well, here, let me explain why it is:

I skim them, and then I forget their precise contacts when I am away.

Every time the article writes the word marriage, it puts it in quotes, in obvious contempt. This indicates that the author of the article set out with an anti-homosexual agenda; clearly biased against them and highly likely to misinterpret the facts in their favor.

Goood.

But what does that have to do with the research within the article? The journalist didn't do the research.

"Even men and women who are homosexual and have been involved in homosexuality for years have told me frankly that they know of few if any long-term relationships -- male or female," he told BP.

Here's a tip: Personal testimony doesn't count as scientific in any respect. If I told you that every black person I knew steals stereos and listens to rap at 2 in the morning, does that mean you can draw any conclusion from it? Even if they told me so themselves?

Perosnal testimony becomes relevant when you have enough people who notice a shocking trend, but you are right, in thi case it is irrelevent.

Evangelicals say that homosexual relationships will never bring satisfaction because, at the core, they involve rebellion against God. Writing in a Crosswalk.com commentary last October, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that marriage is the "culminating picture of creation’s goodness."

"Because of that void [the homosexual] is trying to fill it the wrong way and the only way he knows to fill it is through sexual encounters," Wilkins said. "But after the sexual encounter is over, the emptiness is even larger.

Biased. If you can't see it, you're just another bigot tool.

this part of the article was not part of what I quoted; I quoted the researc evidence from it. What point are you trying to make?

the journalists didnt make the article, and I would never cite a source made by them for objective debate.

Get a clue.


What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.

So does that mean heterosexual men are inclined to pedophilia? There seems to be a correlation there.

If you can bring me evidence saying that heterosexual men, per capita, perform more acts of pedophilia than homosexual me, yes, it definitely does.

However, the rate of pedophilia amongst men in general I am sure is small, though perhaps the heterosexuals are more inclined; instead of 1 in 10,000 it becomes more like 2 in 10,000, maybe, for heteros as compared to homosexuals.

I do not pick and choose what facts are convenient for me, unlike my opponents.

Maybe even homosexuals generally have higher IQs than heterosexuals; I would not doubt it or deny it if evidence was brought up. So why don't you do some research?

Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).

Wait, this is golden. Please, dear boy, tell me, how did you find out about "bizarre" sexual acts if you haven't done any research on them? I would bet you dollars to donuts that you heard about it either from television, your straight friends, or a religious organization condemning the dangers of these practices. I'm not going to argue that fisting and that gerbil thing don't happen and I'm not going to argue that it's normal or healthy, because I don't believe that it is. However, these acts are rare and blown out of proportion to the point of absurdity, and they are certainly not limited to or indeed more prevelent among homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals. What I'm trying to say here is that these deviances are universal to human sexuality, not homosexuals alone.

I have heard about some of these acts from friends, and a few from my mother (she used to share an apartment with a homosexual who still remains her friend; my mother is a liberal, like you).

Again, I am not going to debat eit; I begin to feel queasy.

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

No, homosexuals.

You didn't answer my question. What's the "nature?" It's beginning to look like you only don't like them because they're gay. Which is of no consequence to you whatsoever.

No, people who are homosexual.

And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.

The only non-biased source you cited showed the rates in percentages, which I've already shown to be misleading. If you could show this statistic in actual numbers, citing several independent studies, I would be more inclined to believe you.

How are they misleading,a nd are there any other studies to prove these conclusions as being wrong? :)

It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

Think about this for a second. Who persecutes homosexuals? People like you. You, frankly, are personally responsible for the chemical dependencies of homosexuals, if what you say is true. You continue to believe they're sick and perverted, and you chide them for it, which drives them to chemical dependencies. YOU are the one making them behave this way. You can't blame them for something that people like you caused.

Yes, we can; they should have more self-control or be straight, or move away from our society.

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.

Now you're just insulting people because you can't defend your irrational hatred and you know it. This would be sad if it weren't funny.

It is not irrational; it is a deviance that they practice that spreads disease and contaminates the society as a whole. And now they want to raise kids.

I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.

I think you're beginning to slide down a slippery slope, here. What exactly do you think is going to happen if we accept homosexual orientation as a natural part of the scheme of human sexuality? If you think it's going to turn kids gay, think again. Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Let's try an experiment to prove it.

If homosexuality is a choice, you should reasonably be able to will yourself to be attracted to men. You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem. Will yourself gay and then go find some pictures of attractive men and see if you become aroused.

I don't know why I wasted my time writing that, since you won't do it, or you'll at least lie about it.

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your argument right now, but I'm desperately awaiting your response. WILL HE DO IT, FOLKS? WILL HE BE GAY FOR AN HOUR? PLACE YOUR BETS NOW![/quote]

LOL, I would never be a gay.

[Immortal Goat]

First of all, homosexuality cannot be fucking "chosen", and it has been proven so. Get your head out of your ass and research for fucking once.

Second of all, straight sex transmits just as many (if not more) diseases as gay sex, so that make that argument moot. You are just looking for excuses to hate a group of people that have never done you personally any harm? Were you raped by a gay man or something? Or are you just basing your hate off of pure ignorance?

Maybe you should talk with a gay man. And I mean actually talk. Don't bash him, degrade him, or anything else. I mean hold a conversation about everyday activities. Don't even talk about sex. Talk about the weather, sports, or TV shows. Maybe music, movies, or books (or can't you read?). Maybe then you'll see that gay people aren't the "EVAL HOMOES FROM HELL" that you protray them as.

And if all goes well, maybe he'll give you a reacharound. :)

[Dr. Boogie]

Just don't let him breathe on you, or you'll catch the gay from him.

[Pharaoh]

Couldn't we look at gay couples adopting children as merely a luxury, one allowable due to our own intellectual advances and superiority....?

I can understand that point of view if you really believe a child won't be adversely affected by being adopted by gay men, but I'm not convinced that they won't be. It's a luxury for gays but I don't think we have the right to give them that luxury.

Gays want homosexuality to be considered normal and natural, and I can mostly accept that, I think some people are just born gay, but they dont accept the natural consequence of being gay, which is to be childless.

I'm surprised only two people here, me and Kulturkampf, are against gay adoption, because any opinion poll I've seen shows that most people are against it. And if a parent, who's against gay adoption, dies, then why should a gay couple be able to adopt their child?

[Pub Lover]

I'm surprised only two people here, me and Kulturkampf, are against gay adoption...
Being the internet racist that I am, the image that springs straight to mind is of two black guys walking into a Klu Klux Klan meeting & for them to ask 'Where Mah Niggas At?'

SCANDALIZED! :eek

[ziggytrix]

I'm neither for nor against gay adoption, however, gay couples wishing to make a lifetime commitment do not have the same legal recognition as a straight couple, so the right to adopt is moot.

However, Pharoah, if having gay parents is not a problem when one of the parents is a biological parent, then I fail to see why it should be a problem when they are both only legally parents.

In our current society the stigma of homosexuality (in this case the stigma of having gay parents) is not something I would wish upon anyone, so on those grounds I cannot say I'm for gay adoption rights. But I have to wonder if a gay couple would not provide a better home for a child than an orphanage. Isn't that the bottom line?

[kahljorn]

Kulterkamp, I would like responses to the following(since you chose to ignore them, which to me signifies you feel stupified by them):

"Did you know they often allow child molesters to adopt? Yes, it's true. When going through the process of adopting a child they do absolutely no background check, drug tests or anything else like that. I hope you can recognize the sarcasm in that. "


"They aren't facts, remember? And also, my response was pretty much the result that the studies you yourself posted suggested. I find that hilarious. You're the one arguing against facts. I'll post it again so you can revel in it:
"In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems." (That's from one of your posted articles, in case you forget)
Here's what i said, in case you forget:
"And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints" "


Okay thanks, here's responses to yours:

"What conditioning? Do you believe each homosexual is conditioned by his parents to be a homosexual?"

You're obviously stupid, learn to read. I was talking about Emotional oversensitivity and how genders are socially conditioned to have different emotional responses to various situations.


"We'll never go away -- not in my lifetime, and not in the lifetime of my kids; you'll die before you see your ideals factualized, in the very least. We are losing the war, but we will still make you uncomfortable because we hate you. "

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm not made uncomfortable by anything. Especially not people who hate gays. And I don't know why you keep targetting this at me like I have any personal interest in the topic, or like I'm taking sides. I just think your argument is illogical and stupid and am having fun tearing it apart.
P.S. I hope your kids turn out gay, and they probably will. It's been found that children with homophobic parents often end up gay.


"Do you really tink that it is a matter of simply random kids becoming homosexuals, and just a slight alteration with how we are raised? Ridiculous. What is your proof? "

Um, I don't believe that necessarily but that can have an effect, sure. There's so much that can happen before that that will influence it. These aren't necessarily even my ideas I'm quoting, these are well-founded psychological ideas. Maybe try looking up, "Psychosexual development"?
Imagine somebody who actually knows about psychology taking part in a conversation like this. Madness.


"If you want, please put the relevant points in much shorter ways."

See towards the very top. Especially the part about adoption agencies requiring drug tests and background tests. Because, despite what your insane punile mind would like to imagine, they don't just give children out to drug addicts.
Dumbass.
I'd really like a response to that, if you can. I'm sure it just tears apart your universe though, considering it essentially undermines every single point you've made.

Also, what about the point with straight people being drug addicts? Are they still allowed to have kids? You never responded to that. I wonder why.


But in all seriousness, it's obvious our debate is over. you refuse to answer any of the serious questions and instead attempt to focus on the weakest link to avoid them, which to me signifies you feel you've already lost. This debate is now pointless, we've already won. You've lost. We are obviously too smart for you, or maybe you're too stupid for us? Either way, good day. I'm glad we were able to crush all of your pitiful ideas that had such a weak intellectual backing.
To be completely honest, the only reason I even want to see you try to respond to the above is to see you squirm, so if you want to indulge me.. please. It's always nice to see how people respond to things they fear.

[Pharaoh]

I'm neither for nor against gay adoption, however, gay couples wishing to make a lifetime commitment do not have the same legal recognition as a straight couple, so the right to adopt is moot.

However, Pharoah, if having gay parents is not a problem when one of the parents is a biological parent, then I fail to see why it should be a problem when they are both only legally parents.

In our current society the stigma of homosexuality (in this case the stigma of having gay parents) is not something I would wish upon anyone, so on those grounds I cannot say I'm for gay adoption rights. But I have to wonder if a gay couple would not provide a better home for a child than an orphanage. Isn't that the bottom line?


A new law that went into effect last week means that same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children in the UK now, and they can have the same legal recognition as a straight couple since December last year, so it's not moot here anymore.

For me, the important difference is that the child has a mum or dad looking after them if one of the parents is a biological parent. It would be dad and his partner, or mum and her partner. It isn't ideal at all but it just has to be coped with if it happens.

A child who's adopted by a gay couple though doesn't really have any mum or dad, they've just got two men or two women, you can't really have two dads, it's too odd, and it can be avoided by not allowing gay adoption. It doesn't have to happen and I don't think it should.

A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else although possibly a gay couple would provide a better home for a child than an orphanage, I agree, but it's a risk.

[ziggytrix]

you can't really have two dads, it's too odd

if one of the parents is a biological parent. It would be dad and his partner

Your argument is internally inconsistent. That doesn't suprise me though, as 100 years ago whites were likely mading internally inconsistent arguments for why it would be unnatural for interracial adoption to occur.

I think it's probably too soon to allow it in the UK - you guys aren't that progressive/liberal. But perhaps a generation or two from now some of the old prejudices won't be so strong.

Who knows?

So, how do you feel about singles adopting, regardless of sexual orientation?

[kahljorn]

"A child who's adopted by a gay couple though doesn't really have any mum or dad"

A child who's adopted isn't really going to have a "Mom and dad" anyway, because they aren't their real parents. So that point is kind of moot.

Children from orphanages are likely to have just as many theoretical problems bonding with a male and female as they are with two males or two females. This has nothing to do with their parents sexuality, but more to do with their "Biological" parents who they were attached to being gone. Lots of people manage to get over that, though.
The only possible argument i could see arising from this is that people would make fun of them for having gay parents. But they are just as likely to be made fun of for being an orphan, anyway. People get made fun of for things all the time, and personaly if I had to chose between sharing my bedroom with 30 other people and eatting gruel everyday or having parents, my own bedroom and decent food I would probably choose the later. There's enough dignity in that to make up for the lost dignity of having homosexual adopted parents.
However, I can understand the point. I just don't know if it's really a good one or not. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how society responds to it. Personally, I think it's a great fixer upper for everyone's problems, and I think outright refusing the possibility of it because they'll be made fun of is retarded.
You know, children who are raised in orphanages their entire life aren't always the best developed people anyway. Maybe it's because nobody adopted them, or just their living conditions? I don't really know. If I remember right there's alot of psychological syndromes that originate within orphanages, though.

[Pharaoh]

you can't really have two dads, it's too odd

if one of the parents is a biological parent. It would be dad and his partner

Your argument is internally inconsistent. That doesn't suprise me though, as 100 years ago whites were likely mading internally inconsistent arguments for why it would be unnatural for interracial adoption to occur.

I think it's probably too soon to allow it in the UK - you guys aren't that progressive/liberal. But perhaps a generation or two from now some of the old prejudices won't be so strong.

Who knows?

So, how do you feel about singles adopting, regardless of sexual orientation?


I'm not inconsistant, it's just that you can't read properly, a biological dad and his partner is not two dads. It's dad plus Steve or Dave or whatever.

And a generation or two from now we'll probably have sharia law so I wouldn't count on it being more progressive/liberal here.

Singles adopting aren't as ideal as married couples adopting but are better than gay couples, I'd say.

[kahljorn]

"I'm not inconsistant, it's just that you can't read properly, a biological dad and his partner is not two dads."

:lol If only you could write/type properly.

"Singles adopting aren't as ideal as married couples adopting but are better than gay couples, I'd say."

You're just saying it. That's the problem. If you had some solid intellectual or logical backing maybe your 'points' would be a little more accepted/pointed? For now you're just running your mouth-- just like that other guy.
I don't know why either of you even bother to talk like you'll change things, no commitee with any say would act in the following manner:

Comitee: "Why shouldn't gays be allowed to adopt children?"
You or the other idiot: "Because they're gay and i think that's bad"
Comitee: "WRITE UP A NEW LAW STATING GAYS ARE BAD AND CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN"

Normally, you'll have to introduce some kind of solid psychological proof, and none of that is going to involve you going, "I'd say".

Still, it's funny that you guys think you could change the world with shit like that. All in all, I'd say you should hand your penii over to some other aspiring jerk-off with a big brain, because you fucks won't succeed in anything-- especially in making a point with any validity.

[ziggytrix]

I assure you, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I find your argument inconsistent because your definition of "dad" requires common genetic material. I know adopted people and people with step-parents who would disagree with that definition. These are not rigid facts, but statements of personal opinion (just in case reading comprehension is not, shall we say, high in your skillset).

As for that quip about Sharia law, that's absolutely asinine. I have little desire to discuss your prejudices against Islam in a discussion about general prejudices against homosexuals, so let's try to stay on-topic or at least on-tangent here. ;)

So am I correct then that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship you can imagine? Do you believe the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent is fundamentally more important than their race, economic level, health, or any other factor?

[Pharaoh]

I assure you, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I find your argument inconsistent because your definition of "dad" requires common genetic material. I know adopted people and people with step-parents who would disagree with that definition. These are not rigid facts, but statements of personal opinion (just in case reading comprehension is not, shall we say, high in your skillset).

As for that quip about Sharia law, that's absolutely asinine. I have little desire to discuss your prejudices against Islam in a discussion about general prejudices against homosexuals, so let's try to stay on-topic or at least on-tangent here. ;)

So am I correct then that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship you can imagine? Do you believe the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent is fundamentally more important than their race, economic level, health, or any other factor?

Read back through my posts and you'll see that my definition of "dad" does not require common genetic material. I said 'A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else'.

No, you're not correct that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship, I think two gays are even worse.

[kahljorn]

I thought this would be relevant:

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

That's an official study and what-not, I haven't even finished reading it. So who knows, it could side with either side! Let's find out!

This was a study done on just about all factors. Including their relation to peers, their chances of being gay, their gender-roles etc. etc.

" In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed. "

[ziggytrix]

Your definition of 'dad' only requires shared genetic material in the case of a homosexual father? How inconsistent. And queer.

Personally, I'd rather a child have a 2-parent team, or even a whole extended family raising him or her. I know my mom and dad had a hell of a time juggling work and raising a kid, and they had help from my grandparents. I can't imagine how single parents (who aren't either ridiculously wealthy or relying on their extended family) do it.

[sadie]

Read back through my posts and you'll see that my definition of "dad" does not require common genetic material. I said 'A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else'.
so if the partner of a gay biological father adopts, the kids would have two dads.

No, you're not correct that a single gay parent would make the worst possible parent-child relationship, I think two gays are even worse.
a straight alcoholic man/woman who sexually molests his/her biological children is worse than two gay, loving adopted parents?

[Pharaoh]

I know my mom and dad had a hell of a time juggling work and raising a kid, and they had help from my grandparents.

Yeah, I'm sure it was hell raising you.

[ziggytrix]

Is that supposed to be an insult?

Do you mind if I ask your age?

[kahljorn]

"a straight alcoholic man/woman who sexually molests his/her biological children is worse than two gay, loving adopted parents?"

Yea sadie, it's so much worse!!!!!!!! That other guy wouldn't even conceed that straight people who do drugs and beat their children make worse parents than gay people who treat their kids well and don't do drugs.

By the by, that study did do a study on social aptitude and found that they had normal friends and normal relationships.

You assholes lose ;(

[Pharaoh]

ziggytrix, no I don't mind if you ask, but I'm not going to tell you, but I will say I have two young children of my own.

[ziggytrix]

And would you say you are doing an excellent, good, fair, or poor job of raising them to be bigots?

[Pharaoh]

a straight alcoholic man/woman who sexually molests his/her biological children is worse than two gay, loving adopted parents?

Of course they would be worse if they sexually molest their children, but we're talking about all other things being equal, otherwise it's ridiculous.

[Pharaoh]

And would you say you are doing an excellent, good, fair, or poor job of raising them to be bigots?

They're a lot more friendly than the people on this forum, I know that.
You're politically correct leftist bigots.

[ziggytrix]

I take grave moral offense to that slur, you rascal! :posh

[kahljorn]

Are all rightist bigots such pussies? You'd think with all their discrimination and condemning they'd be a little tougher, but you guys seem like such vaginas.

[Pharaoh]

When you have to make pathetic, puerile insults like that, kahljorn, you've lost.

[kahljorn]

:lol Lost what?

You can pretend like cussing or calling people pussies can derail the truth, but that just makes you a moron. I hope Einstein or Newton or some other asshole didn't cuss during his life-time, otherwise gravity might stop working.

[Pharaoh]

You're no Einstein, kahljorn. Your IQ is more at the Frankenstein level. :lol

[kahljorn]

Ugh, you mean the guy who brought someone back to life from the dead, thus inheriting the power of the God's? Seems pretty ingenius to me, thanks.

[ziggytrix]

You're politically correct leftist bigots.

Listen here you closet fag. You just stepped in here, and you clearly don't know shit about where you are, so allow me to drop a little knowledge on ya, you ignorant prat.

The website is called "i-mockery" not "i-liberalism" nor "i-faggotry". If you wanna come in here and lay out a clearly bigoted attitude, then you picked a really brilliant place to be a thin skinned ninny about being called on your nineteenth century attitude.

If you think this place is swarming with the politically correct, then you're completely mistaken and pretty fuckin oblivious. So by all means, stick around and run your mouth believing we're all a bunch of die-hard Democrats or whatever the equivalent is in whichever piss-hole corner of your dismal country you call home. I'm glad die-hard conservatives come around thinking this is some kind of Michael Moore circle-jerk forum, cuz you bring me back down from my childish idealism and remind me why cynicism is the only -ism that isn't completley full of shit.

In short, enjoy your stay here and go fuck yourself. :)

[Pub Lover]

'A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else'.
What England do you live in? The Nuclear Family of a mother, father & 2.4 children hasn't been considered the standard for 30 years. An anecdote to illustrate this would be that when I first started attending school in the early eighties, I felt inferior to the majority of my classmates because my parents were actually living together. I felt I had been robbed of a second home & the joy of being able to switch between the two.

I also called my parents by their first names, & it was very later on that I learned to apply them labels due to their standing in the familial hierarchy. At least my father got that right, he kept my mother bare-foot & pregnant in the kitchen.

[Pharaoh]

You're politically correct leftist bigots.

Listen here you closet fag. You just stepped in here, and you clearly don't know shit about where you are, so allow me to drop a little knowledge on ya, you ignorant prat.

The website is called "i-mockery" not "i-liberalism" nor "i-faggotry". If you wanna come in here and lay out a clearly bigoted attitude, then you picked a really brilliant place to be a thin skinned ninny about being called on your nineteenth century attitude.

If you think this place is swarming with the politically correct, then you're completely mistaken and pretty fuckin oblivious. So by all means, stick around and run your mouth believing we're all a bunch of die-hard Democrats or whatever the equivalent is in whichever piss-hole corner of your dismal country you call home. I'm glad die-hard conservatives come around thinking this is some kind of Michael Moore circle-jerk forum, cuz you bring me back down from my childish idealism and remind me why cynicism is the only -ism that isn't completley full of shit.

In short, enjoy your stay here and go fuck yourself. :)

Hold on. You're calling me a bigot and at the same time using homosexuality as an insult? I think you'd better think about that one, knucklehead.

And while your at it think about your own childish xenophobic bigotry against Britain.

I'm going to enjoy pulling you apart, hypocrite.

[Pharaoh]

'A child who's adopted by a straight couple has a mum and dad and can be just like anyone else'.
What England do you live in? The Nuclear Family of a mother, father & 2.4 children hasn't been considered the standard for 30 years. An anecdote to illustrate this would be that when I first started attending school in the early eighties, I felt inferior to the majority of my classmates because my parents were actually living together. I felt I had been robbed of a second home & the joy of being able to switch between the two.

I also called my parents by their first names, & it was very later on that I learned to apply them labels due to their standing in the familial hierarchy. At least my father got that right, he kept my mother bare-foot & pregnant in the kitchen.

I live in Brighton, which must be the most politically correct place in the whole of Britain. It has a large gay community and was the first place to have a gay wedding last month.
Instead of the usual Christmas tree outside the town hall and registry office, there was just a rainbow (gay) flag flying. So I feel the whole gay rights thing has gone too far now, and the traditional family is put in second place even though it's been well proven to be the best way to bring up children.

[Pub Lover]

I grew up just down the road in Crawley. That gay flag thing sounds as stupid as it probably was. Being PC is bullshit.

Rationalism is probably a good thing for opinions, just not my opinions if personal experience says different. In my experience Homosexuals are juat like regular people, some are jerks, some are neat, so I think they should be treated as such without me pandering to them because they are touchy bastards.

I've never met a Muslim man over the age of 20 that hasn't been a complete asshole, but that's the other thread.

[ziggytrix]

Learn to recognize sarcasm and hyperbole or get the fuck off this site, cunt.

"Instead of the usual Christmas tree outside the town hall and registry office, there was just a rainbow (gay) flag flying. So I feel the whole gay rights thing has gone too far now, and the traditional family is put in second place even though it's been well proven to be the best way to bring up children."

That's pretty fuckin absurd (the flag thing), but your feeling that the "traditional family has been put in second place" is pretty fuckin absurd as well. Even should homosexual adoptions be legalized, do you really think for one second that they're going to have an easier time showing their fitness for adoption than a traditional straight couple?

Give me a fuckin break, you paranoid crybaby. Let the feminists and the coloreds and the queers have their equal rights you stupid fuck.

And while you're at it, find out what that gay pride flag was about - that doesn't even make any kind of sense that it would be a replacement for a Christmas tree.

[Pharaoh]

Learn to recognize sarcasm and hyperbole or get the fuck off this site, cunt.

"Instead of the usual Christmas tree outside the town hall and registry office, there was just a rainbow (gay) flag flying. So I feel the whole gay rights thing has gone too far now, and the traditional family is put in second place even though it's been well proven to be the best way to bring up children."

That's pretty fuckin absurd (the flag thing), but your feeling that the "traditional family has been put in second place" is pretty fuckin absurd as well. Even should homosexual adoptions be legalized, do you really think for one second that they're going to have an easier time showing their fitness for adoption than a traditional straight couple?

Give me a fuckin break, you paranoid crybaby. Let the feminists and the coloreds and the queers have their equal rights you stupid fuck.

And while you're at it, find out what that gay pride flag was about - that doesn't even make any kind of sense that it would be a replacement for a Christmas tree.

If anyone sounds like a paranoid crybaby it's you, you're getting hysterical, you sound like a nutter to me.

The gay pride flag was about the country's first gay wedding that we had here at Christmas. The leftist council here doesn't believe in using public money for a Christian celebration anymore, it's not pc, they'd rather celebrate gay marriage with a gay flag. You'd probably love it here.

[Immortal Goat]

While I agree that the flag is taking PC too far, you failed to respond to his point of EQUAL rights. What is so wrong about asking to be treated like your fellow man? Are they not people? Do they not deserve the same respect for life and self worth that anyone else does? Or is your rightist bigoted self too narrow minded to see that they bleed the same as you?

Seriously, you need to take a long hard look at what you and your cuntery stand for. You stand for hatred and inequality, which is just as bad as being too PC. Find the middle ground. Allow gay marriage, but you can still have a christmas tree. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when your opinions can be toppled by a bumper sticker that says:

"Against gay marriage? Don't have one."

[ziggytrix]

If anyone sounds like a paranoid crybaby it's you, you're getting hysterical, you sound like a nutter to me.

I believe the sage Reubens said it best, "I know you are, but what am I?"

As for hysterics, I refer you to my previous remark, Learn to recognize sarcasm and hyperbole or get the fuck off this site, cunt. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with any of those words.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm surprised only two people here, me and Kulturkampf, are against gay adoption, because any opinion poll I've seen shows that most people are against it.

I have mixed feelings on it. I was mostly playing Devil's advocate on the matter.

I just think arguing against it on the grounds of what is and isn't supposedly normal or natural is a bad way to go about it.

[Emu]

I think it's premature to make any assumptions about gay adoption, negative or positive, since it hasn't really been done. Probably the only way we're going to reach any kind of conclusive argument for either side is for some people to actually do it in one of those grand social experiments.

[kahljorn]

That study i posted was supposedly done on both adopted children and biological children.

[Emu]

Somehow I managed to miss that. Still, I don't think that's enough evidence to make a conclusion of any kind.

Edit: What I'd like to know is what would happen if the evidence showed that adoptive children of gay parents turn out to be gay themselves at a greater rate than those of heterosexual parents. There would be the obvious opposition from anti-homosexual groups, but what about everybody else? It would boil down to whether people ultimately decide if a higher rate of homosexuality is essentially a negative thing.

[kahljorn]

The study studied that as well. I also agree that the study isn't enough on it's own, and it should still be studied. I also believe the study itself mentions that on multiple occasions.

According to the study, though, children of gay parents(they mostly did lesbians) were "just as Straight" as the children of heterosexual parents. Same with gender-roles and nearly everything else. It basically said every point against it was bullshit and ineffectual.

[Pharaoh]

As for hysterics, I refer you to my previous remark, Learn to recognize sarcasm and hyperbole or get the fuck off this site, cunt. Please let me know if you are having difficulty with any of those words.

I can recognize hyperbollocks, your posts are full of it.

[kahljorn]

Hyperbollocks isn't even a word. >:

[Ant10708]

Why are Ziggy and others attacking Pharaoh as if he was saying stuff like the first guy against gays. He has a different view on gay adoption. So what? I havn't seen him act like the bigot you people call him. Some people on this board act as if he is rounding up gays and putting them in camps to be killed or as if he even suggested something as extreme. He seems to be getting more insults thrown at him than the guy who was making threads about the 'myths' of the holocaust.

In my opinion gays are regular people. I have more than one gay person in my conservative Roman Catholic family. I think they should have the same rights and benefits of a married couple. I don't think people who are opposed to gay adoption are bigots or afriad of gays. Its a differeing opinion. Its already been said we know neither any positive or negative effects of having two gay parents. I think the whole drug connection to gays is a pretty dumb way to says gay shouldn't adopt. I smoke marijuana everyday and I'm straight and I'm sure when I'm older I will still be fit to be a parent of an adopted child or one of my own. In the case of harder drugs I'm pretty sure whoever is sticking the herion needle in their arms, they aren't the best parents. People also seem equate the current situation of gays with the slavery of blacks and the rights of woman. Is it really fair to make that comparison? Gays are not being subjected to anything remotely similar to that of the slaves and they seem to have equal rights in all areas except marriage and adoption. I'm a stoner and my people weather gay or straight are being thrown in jail for smoking a plant. Thats a much bigger outrage to me than having to make a compromise and calling my marriage(if i was a homosexual) a 'partnership' or 'union' with the same benefits.

I do think New York state money being used for a school for gays(apparently some feel they need their own environment because of harassment) is ridiculous. I'm sure their are tons of miniority groups that are harassed just as much as gays in NY.

[Emu]

I'm pretty sure the plural of hyperbole is hyperbole. >:

[Pharaoh]

While I agree that the flag is taking PC too far, you failed to respond to his point of EQUAL rights. What is so wrong about asking to be treated like your fellow man? Are they not people? Do they not deserve the same respect for life and self worth that anyone else does? Or is your rightist bigoted self too narrow minded to see that they bleed the same as you?

Seriously, you need to take a long hard look at what you and your cuntery stand for. You stand for hatred and inequality, which is just as bad as being too PC. Find the middle ground. Allow gay marriage, but you can still have a christmas tree. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when your opinions can be toppled by a bumper sticker that says:

"Against gay marriage? Don't have one."

I'm not against gay marriage, I'm just against gay adoption and politically correct madness.

[Immortal Goat]

Gay adoption falls under the equal rights argument, too. And as for being too PC, that is true. It can happen, but I don't think that recognizing that they are people and have just as much a desire for family as anyone else is too much to ask. Why can't gay people have families? Children are no worse or better off than children of straight couples, and that would be the only real reason to be against it.

[kahljorn]

"Its already been said we know neither any positive or negative effects of having two gay parents."

There was a study posted, hello!

"I think the whole drug connection to gays is a pretty dumb way to says gay shouldn't adopt. I smoke marijuana everyday and I'm straight and I'm sure when I'm older I will still be fit to be a parent of an adopted child or one of my own."

I agree the second part was stupid but thanks for the information.

"In the case of harder drugs I'm pretty sure whoever is sticking the herion needle in their arms, they aren't the best parents."

You can smoke heroin, or in the case of black tar, you can just put it in a cut on your hand.

"People also seem equate the current situation of gays with the slavery of blacks and the rights of woman. Is it really fair to make that comparison?"

Yes, because sociologically it is the same movement. Equal rights for all mankind or some such shit. Sure, now a days gays may not be getting shafted(that was mostly in the early 1900's) but they still have a lot of rights that are being revoked. Just like how women still bitch that they don't get the same amount of pay as a man does. Just because the issues don't seem to be as large doesn't mean they aren't the same nor deserve equal merit.
Gay marriage issues are stupid, in my opinion. I always thought marriage laws should be independant to the church. So one church hates gays, goto another who doesn't. I think the entire idea of forcing a religion to allow them to marry two people they don't want to marry is ridiculous, however, i think it's just as ridiculous that they can say ALL church's must act in the following manner. Not all church's are the same, and treating them that way is more hypocritical than anything else; you then force your religion on other religions.
Marriage laws now a days are ridiculous anyway, so fuck it. If marriage laws were actually in accordance with the bible, then maybe I'd go for it. However, considering there's this little thing now a days called DIVORCE which as far as I know isn't in the bible I'd say anybody who demands their church's rights be upheld in a political viewpoint deserves to have their opinions ignored. In fact, church's are bullshit now a days anyway. Fuck them.

"Gays are not being subjected to anything remotely similar to that of the slaves and they seem to have equal rights in all areas except marriage and adoption."

You must have missed the part about the early 1900's where they would be arrested or sent to a mental institution for being gay. Then they would castrate, amputate, electricute and do various other things to try to turn them ungay. So yes, gays were treated bad. Shut up if you don't know.

"I'm a stoner and my people weather gay or straight are being thrown in jail for smoking a plant."

Who cares, to you it's a big outrage but to someone who wants to get married and can't that's an 'even greater outrage', but thanks for interjecting your personal opinion on the matter.

P.S move to california where they have a cannibus club, all you have to do is pay 100 dollars(or 150, i thought they changed it though) and you can smoke pot legally(you can also grow it). You can also goto a cannibus club and buy pot for a fairly reasonable price. Lots of states have cannibus clubs now a days, I'm pretty sure the entire west coast does

I also agree with the last thing you said.

[ziggytrix]

Why are Ziggy and others attacking Pharaoh as if he was saying stuff like the first guy against gays.

Because posting in the poli/sci/nerd forum is NO EXCUSE for a waiver of the Standard McClain Disclaimer, and I don't give a fuck if it was abolished before you even knew of i-mockery, but some things just are historically important, better, and this only proves everything was better back before you noobs came along and ruined it.


People also seem equate the current situation of gays with the slavery of blacks and the rights of woman. Is it really fair to make that comparison? Gays are not being subjected to anything remotely similar to that of the slaves and they seem to have equal rights in all areas except marriage and adoption.

To me, it's still about civil rights and discrimination based on what is, most evidence suggests, primarily a genetic physical characteristic. I could make some remark about the rights of blacks immediately after the Emancipation Proclaimation, but I think even today Western society still has a long way to go in minimizing prejudice and discrimination, so that's beside the point.


I do think New York state money being used for a school for gays(apparently some feel they need their own environment because of harassment) is ridiculous.

WTF? I have not heard of this. A public school for gays only? That's stupid.

[Pharaoh]

Gay adoption falls under the equal rights argument, too. And as for being too PC, that is true. It can happen, but I don't think that recognizing that they are people and have just as much a desire for family as anyone else is too much to ask. Why can't gay people have families? Children are no worse or better off than children of straight couples, and that would be the only real reason to be against it.

'Why can't gay people have families?'.
Didn't you do biology in school? You see, it takes both sexes to make a baby, and gay couples only consist of one sex, that's why.

What would you do if there were no children available for adoption, if abortion and contraception cut the numbers of unwanted children to zero? How would you make gays equal then?

[Spectre X]

The slim possibility of adoption. As in, there are laws that would allow them to adopt if chilkren were in ample supply.

[kahljorn]

"What would you do if there were no children available for adoption, if abortion and contraception cut the numbers of unwanted children to zero? How would you make gays equal then?"

What would you do if gays could fly and had super magical powers that threatened to destroy the world?

Unfortunately this isn't a what if conversation. There ARE children who need homes. However, if there weren't I would hope that the children are going to the best possible homes, rather than some kind of (whateverthat P wordforequalityis) for gay adoption.

I mean, I honestly don't know what you expect from a question like that. What do you think gay people would do if there was no children for them? Go on a rampage? More than likely they'd probably start arranging for those people who have children for them(starts with a v, maybe a p?). Also, what about foreign countries? They'll always have extra babies.
Other than that I don't expect any actions to force them to be equal. They are gay, like you said, they can't have children with eachother(unless those crazy experiments with impregnating men go through). The only thing they could hope is that maybe they could use their sperm on a woman willing to have a baby for them. *shrug* I guess there's always options, no matter how stupid the "What if" game you want to play is.

Sorry, my brain doesn't work today. Too sick. Also, look. I didn't cuss at him even once. Hurr-fucking-ay.

[Immortal Goat]

'Why can't gay people have families?'.
Didn't you do biology in school? You see, it takes both sexes to make a baby, and gay couples only consist of one sex, that's why.

What would you do if there were no children available for adoption, if abortion and contraception cut the numbers of unwanted children to zero? How would you make gays equal then?

By your logic, then people who are biologically unable to have children shouldn't be able to adopt, simply because "nature didn't intend it to happen". Think about this stuff through before you post. I know that's hard for you to do, but for your own good, I reccomend one of two things to make yourself seem 100% smarter. Either:

A- Quit posting here. Your outdated logic and obvious dislike of anything "different" makes you an easy target for mockery, which, incidentally, this site is quite capable of.

*~*>OR<*~*

B- If you insist on being ignorant and relying solely on the "you're a liberal" defense, at least make it entertaining. There is a thread that can teach you exactly how to do this. Study the "Someone who talks in intelligent sentences" thread hard until you achieve misspeaking Nirvana, and then post away.

EDIT: Ok, that last one won't make you seem smarter, but at least we will get SOME entertainment value out of your 19th century logic.

[Pharaoh]

'I reccomend one of two things to make yourself seem 100% smarter.'

And I recommend you learn how to spell before come out with pompous statements like that, because it makes you look 100% dumb. :troutslap

[kahljorn]

This is the guy I'm supposed to be nice to.

[Immortal Goat]

'I reccomend one of two things to make yourself seem 100% smarter.'

And I recommend you learn how to spell before come out with pompous statements like that, because it makes you look 100% dumb. :troutslap
I'm sorry that I spelled a word incorrectly. Especially since the internet is such serious business. I swear on the graves of all the saints that I shall never again spell anything incorrectly while in the process of insulting your degrading sense of superiority to all homos.

[kahljorn]

Did you notice he edited his post? Probably because he spelled something wrong and was embarassed.


"And I recommend you learn how to spell before come out"

I recommend you learn how to use grammar before come out with stupid sentence.

[ziggytrix]

And I recommend you learn how to spell before come out with pompous statements like that, because it makes you look 100% dumb. :troutslap


Find the error in the quoted sentence and win Pharaoh's undying contempt! I mean, a prize, yeah a nice, shiny prize! Hint: what's the opposite of regressive?

[kahljorn]

Is it the error I pointed out before you posted? because if it is, i want the prize. Now.

[ziggytrix]

For identifying the failure to use progressive tense you win: a mummy's curse!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ziggytrix/lonchaneyjr9.jpg
This prize stinks!

[kahljorn]

I thought I would get a hat :(

[Kulturkampf]

First of all, homosexuality cannot be fucking "chosen", and it has been proven so. Get your head out of your ass and research for fucking once.

I always thought the jury was still out on what causes homosexuality.

Second of all, straight sex transmits just as many (if not more) diseases as gay sex, so that make that argument moot. You are just looking for excuses to hate a group of people that have never done you personally any harm? Were you raped by a gay man or something? Or are you just basing your hate off of pure ignorance?

I am bashing them out of disliking their lifestyle.

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

But facts do not concern you -- only overly abstract concepts.

Maybe you should talk with a gay man. And I mean actually talk. Don't bash him, degrade him, or anything else. I mean hold a conversation about everyday activities. Don't even talk about sex. Talk about the weather, sports, or TV shows. Maybe music, movies, or books (or can't you read?). Maybe then you'll see that gay people aren't the "EVAL HOMOES FROM HELL" that you protray them as.

that's all right. I do hang out with a few folks who are bisexual. One in particular is ultra-liberal and talks about the entire "let's unlearn gender" bit.

You should hang out with a few right wingers, and instead of calling them Bible thumpers and saying 'those neanderthals from the caves,' you should consider listening to their perspective.

Understanding is a two-way road, cunt.

[Immortal Goat]

I always thought the jury was still out on what causes homosexuality.
The jury is out on what causes it, yes. But they have pretty much determined that it isn't chosen. The only disagreement left that's worth a damn is whether it is psychological or physiological.


I am bashing them out of disliking their lifestyle.

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

But facts do not concern you -- only overly abstract concepts.
OK, then, mister Spartan. Isn't freedom an overly abstract concept? What about liberty? Justice? Are these not all abstract concepts? And also, aren't these the latest right-wing buzz words for why you people do what you do?

that's all right. I do hang out with a few folks who are bisexual. One in particular is ultra-liberal and talks about the entire "let's unlearn gender" bit.

You should hang out with a few right wingers, and instead of calling them Bible thumpers and saying 'those neanderthals from the caves,' you should consider listening to their perspective.

Understanding is a two-way road, cunt.
Understanding IS a two way road, and that is why I have engaged in intelligent debate with several of my right-wing friends. You, however, rely on cuntery and general asshole tactics, rendering any hope of intelligent conversation completely useless. And I don't refer to them as bible-thumpiing neanderthals. I have listened to their perspective, and most times, I am the one that gets them to concede that they may be going a little too far.

And as for this liberal person that you know, I know the type. The kind of assholes who think that being nice to people is the way we should be. God damn them for thinking that people ought to be treated equally, and that human life, no matter whose life it is, deserves respect. I can totally see where you're coming from. I mean, who wants to live in a world where people actually get along??O_O

[Kulturkampf]

Freedom and liberty are simple concepts, though abstract; that a man has a right to be as he wants. To do as he wants. It is a good idea. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination.

Liberals want to get along with everyone so much that they end up appeasing Adolf Hitler in the Sudetenland.

[Immortal Goat]

Freedom and liberty are simple concepts, though abstract; that a man has a right to be as he wants. To do as he wants. It is a good idea. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination.

Liberals want to get along with everyone so much that they end up appeasing Adolf Hitler in the Sudetenland.
Ironic then, that I absolutely hate everything that Hitler stands for, and so do all my dirly liberal friends. In fact, I think most of the country hates him. But I'm glad YOU'RE here to tell me that I in fact do like him. Silly me.

Also, your description of freedom and liberty seem to paint the picture I am trying to get at when it comes to what I think society should be like towards all people, whether straight, gay, white, black, brown, yellow, red, Christian, Muslim, or anything else. Next time, don't give me such blatant ammo when you are trying to take out the foundation for my arguments.

[Pharaoh]

Freedom and liberty are simple concepts, though abstract; that a man has a right to be as he wants. To do as he wants. It is a good idea. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination.

Liberals want to get along with everyone so much that they end up appeasing Adolf Hitler in the Sudetenland.
Ironic then, that I absolutely hate everything that Hitler stands for, and so do all my dirly liberal friends. In fact, I think most of the country hates him. But I'm glad YOU'RE here to tell me that I in fact do like him. Silly me.



Yes but it would have been too late to stop Hitler if it was up to you hippies. And now you don't recognize that Islamofascists today are as much a danger to the West's freedom and the Jews as Hitler was.

[Dr. Boogie]

Liberals want to get along with everyone so much that they end up appeasing Adolf Hitler in the Sudetenland.

:lol

Not just because it's a silly thing to say, but because it conjured up a poster of Hitler with outstretched arms, his head tilted to one side with a sappy grin on his face, and the subtitle, "Hitler wants you to get along."

[Immortal Goat]

Yes but it would have been too late to stop Hitler if it was up to you hippies. And now you don't recognize that Islamofascists today are as much a danger to the West's freedom and the Jews as Hitler was.
I hate hippies, for the record. Weak bunch of pussies, if you ask me. That doesn't mean, however, that they don't have any good ideas. Peace is a wonderful idea. Love is great stuff. They just don't realize when force is needed.

Force was needed with Hitler. Force was needed with terrorists. I don't deny that. This thread, however, isn't about that shit, and I would kindly ask you to stay on topic, unless of course you can't make any good arguments, in which case you have lost.

Don't be scared, though. I'm sure I'm not the only person younger than you that is a clearly superior human being. Get used to it.

[Pharaoh]

Liberals want to get along with everyone so much that they end up appeasing Adolf Hitler in the Sudetenland.

:lol

Not just because it's a silly thing to say, but because it conjured up a poster of Hitler with outstretched arms, his head tilted to one side with a sappy grin on his face, and the subtitle, "Hitler wants you to get along."

Do you know what appeasing means? He's not saying liberals approved of Hitler, just that they didn't want to fight him, they'll do anything to maintain peace. Just like you hippies don't want to fight Islamofascism. You just hope it will go away, while you get on with your pot smoking and wanking in peace.

[ziggytrix]

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

But facts do not concern you -- only overly abstract concepts.


You're one to talk. I guess all those people in Africa with AIDS are gay, right? Where are you getting your AIDS statistics? Falwell.com?

now you don't recognize that Islamofascists today are as much a danger to the West's freedom and the Jews as Hitler was.

Islamofacism is a big problem, but it is no Hitler. It's not even a Nazi party. It's so much more ethereal than either. It's more like xenophobia or racism. We can't just nuke some country into the ground and say "Well, that takes care of Islamofascism!" It must be defeated, but it's defeat will not ultimately come in the form of soldiers and bombs. All that serves to do is turn enemy soldiers into guerilla fighters and suicide bombers. There has to be more to the plan than "kill the obvious ones and hope the others just kind of go away".

[kahljorn]

Are we putting gay people and hitler in the same boat? Because i heard about that time gay people forced straight people into labor camps and baked cookies out of anyone who couldn't stitch them rainbow coloured leg warmers.

[Pharaoh]

There has to be more to the plan than "kill the obvious ones and hope the others just kind of go away".

Yes, we can stop them from coming to live in Western countries and kick any out that are here already. In a recent poll (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ixnewstop.html) , 25% of UK Muslims said they don't condemn Islamic terrorism against the West. They should go.

[Pharaoh]

Are we putting gay people and hitler in the same boat? Because i heard about that time gay people forced straight people into labor camps and baked cookies out of anyone who couldn't stitch them rainbow coloured leg warmers.

No, we're putting Islamofascists and Hitler in the same boat, so don't get hysterical again.

[ziggytrix]

because Islamofacism and Hitler are very relevant to a discussion of the mental fitness of queers. :rolleyes

[kahljorn]

"we're putting Islamofascists and Hitler in the same boat"

As far as I know this conversation went from talking about gays to hitler in like 5 seconds. That means someone drew the distinction between hitler and gays. If you knew how to read you'd see that islam wasn't mentioned till later-- you obsessive dimwit.

[Emu]

godwin's law

[Ant10708]

First public gay high school to open in NYC
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/07/28/gay.school.ap/

Isolation seems like a pretty dumb way to stop anti-gay sentiment. And using public money seems illegal.

Its been around for a few years but most people don't seem to give two shits. I can't wait for the obesity public school to be opened.

[ziggytrix]

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/10970/

well, if the OP is right, and all gays are just mentally ill, then the school makes as much sense as any special-ed school!

seriously tho, i would not vote for such an institution. the proper solution is to crack down on anti-gay violence and harrassment, not to ship all the gays off to a segregated school. as for the legality, i'm sure it's every bit as legal as providing a seperate school environment for chronic troublemakers. legal or not though, it's a socially regressive idea.

[kahljorn]

I agree, that's a stupid idea and I feel ashamed that tax dollars are going towards it. It's not going to fix anything except gay people's whining habits. Plus what's with putting every over-sexed teenage gay male into the same place? seems like a stupid idea, it'll be like some kind of orgy fest if they don't keep a lid on it.


:lol
Godwin's law-- That's hilarious.

[Immortal Goat]

That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Think about it. If we put all the homosexuals in one location, all we need is one overzealous Kulturkampf type person to decide that they are going to do something about the "gay problem", and they shoot/ blow up the school. At least in a public setting, it's hard to tell just by looking who is gay and who is straight, but if you put one group all in one area, it is a lot easier to take them out with minimal worry over collateral damage.

[Kulturkampf]

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

But facts do not concern you -- only overly abstract concepts.


You're one to talk. I guess all those people in Africa with AIDS are gay, right? Where are you getting your AIDS statistics? Falwell.com?

You are right: in AFrican states, there is no correlation, and I will definitely grant you that; no problem.

However, in the US there is a correlation. Young, gay men are at very high risk. (http://www.avert.org/aidsyounggaymen.htm)

now you don't recognize that Islamofascists today are as much a danger to the West's freedom and the Jews as Hitler was.

Islamofacism is a big problem, but it is no Hitler. It's not even a Nazi party. It's so much more ethereal than either. It's more like xenophobia or racism. We can't just nuke some country into the ground and say "Well, that takes care of Islamofascism!" It must be defeated, but it's defeat will not ultimately come in the form of soldiers and bombs. All that serves to do is turn enemy soldiers into guerilla fighters and suicide bombers. There has to be more to the plan than "kill the obvious ones and hope the others just kind of go away".[/quote]


It will be defeated through the modernization of their states and the killing off of the people who will fight us in the process, and the total annihilation of the doctrine of Islamic fundamentalism.

[Pharaoh]

That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Think about it. If we put all the homosexuals in one location, all we need is one overzealous Kulturkampf type person to decide that they are going to do something about the "gay problem", and they shoot/ blow up the school. At least in a public setting, it's hard to tell just by looking who is gay and who is straight, but if you put one group all in one area, it is a lot easier to take them out with minimal worry over collateral damage.

I agree it's a daft idea. Tolerance & understanding can't be achieved by segregating people. And why not have a fat or ugly school if it's about stopping bullying?

And maybe we shouldn't have Christian or Muslim schools either because all we need is one overzealous ziggytrix type person to decide that they are going to do something about the "Christian problem", and they'll shoot/blow up those schools too. Look what happened in Beslan.

Likewise somebody like you would be a serious danger to a hippie school, considering your hatred of hippies.

[ziggytrix]

Hey Pharoah, I've never once said anything like I hate Christians or "Christianity is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that."

BTW, I attended a private Christian school for primary and most of secondary school. Just cuz I'm not Christian anymore doesn't mean I have some sort of vendetta.

[Jeanette X]

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

Funny how you focus entirely on male homosexuals and ignore lesbians, who have an extremely low rate of infection.

[Pharaoh]

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

Funny how you focus entirely on male homosexuals and ignore lesbians, who have an extremely low rate of infection.

That's because they're all so ugly. :lol

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Idiot...

[Jeanette X]

Since some animals do practice it doesn't that make homosexuality natural?

Yes maybe it does, but they don't have children from doing it, and other animals don't give them theirs to bring up.

I recollect reading something about two homosexual birds adopting an orphan baby and bringing it up as their own. Can't remember where I saw it though.

I suppose you think its better for children in the care of the state to be bounced from foster home to foster home rather than allow a nice gay couple to adopt them.

[Pharaoh]

You mean the two gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan that zoo keepers gave an egg to raise. That's hardly natural is it? I'm talking about animals in the wild, where that never happens.

I'd rather a nice normal couple adopt children, so they can have a mother and father, not two gay men, as parents.

[Dole]

Amazingly, heterosexuality is not a guarantee of good (or 'normal') parenting.

[Immortal Goat]

Amazingly, heterosexuality is not a guarantee of good (or 'normal') parenting.
B-but they're GAY! GAY IS MEANING BAD! CUNTING LIBERAL TOSSER POINTING OUT FACTS TO ME MAKING ME THINK! HOW DARE YOU!

[Jeanette X]

You mean the two gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan that zoo keepers gave an egg to raise. That's hardly natural is it? I'm talking about animals in the wild, where that never happens.


http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/features/queercreatures/default.htm
"Flamingos are a good example" says MacFarlane "Six percent of them actually form male-male pairs that engage in all the same things a male-female couple will engage in, including courtship and parenting. They may actually take over a nest and raise the young."

Never happens, huh?


I'd rather a nice normal couple adopt children, so they can have a mother and father, not two gay men, as parents.

But in the absence of an adoptive heterosexual couple, isn't adoption of a child by two men or two women better than being in a state run foster care system?

[Emu]

No, because at least with orphanages kids grow up normal. :rolleyes

[Kulturkampf]

Second, and most importantly, certainly heterosexual sex would naturally and biologically transmit diseases on the same level, but the overbounding sexual promiscuity of homosexual men results in them having a much higher rate of AIDS infection (and you know it).

Funny how you focus entirely on male homosexuals and ignore lesbians, who have an extremely low rate of infection.

Yes, I always follow facts; Lesbians rarely ever get these STDs, and so I am not going to pretend that they do. It would be a lie.

I would be just as guilty s all the liberals pretending that homosexual men do not have a higher inclination to AIDS infection.

[Immortal Goat]

And while I do not deny that there is a higher risk in homosexual men, AIDS is a problem all over, and was not caused by homosexuals, despite the myths that the right wing likes to perpetuate. The left wing pretends homosexual men are no more at risk, and the right wing pretends that they caused the infection in the first place. You're even. Shut up.

[Pharaoh]

You mean the two gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan that zoo keepers gave an egg to raise. That's hardly natural is it? I'm talking about animals in the wild, where that never happens.


http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/features/queercreatures/default.htm
"Flamingos are a good example" says MacFarlane "Six percent of them actually form male-male pairs that engage in all the same things a male-female couple will engage in, including courtship and parenting. They may actually take over a nest and raise the young."

Never happens, huh?


I'd rather a nice normal couple adopt children, so they can have a mother and father, not two gay men, as parents.

But in the absence of an adoptive heterosexual couple, isn't adoption of a child by two men or two women better than being in a state run foster care system?

They may actually take over a nest and raise the young. Yeah sure, if humans present one to them, I want to see more proof of that.

And I don't think adoption of a child by two men or two women is better than being in a state run foster care system.

[Ant10708]

Should we really be looking towards animals for examples on what we should do? Animals naturally eat their young too. There are def legitmate reasons to let gays adopt but because animals are sometimes gay and care for young sounds like a dumb reason.

[Jeanette X]

They may actually take over a nest and raise the young. Yeah sure, if humans present one to them, I want to see more proof of that.


Read the fucking article, you stupid sack of shit. It didn't say anything about zoos or captivity. At least Kuluturekunt acknowlaged the low lesbian STD rates.


And I don't think adoption of a child by two men or two women is better than being in a state run foster care system.

Why not?

[Immortal Goat]

And I don't think adoption of a child by two men or two women is better than being in a state run foster care system.
Then you must know nothing about the quality of many of these institutions, and in that aspect, my entire family is better qualified to make this argument than you. I'm not getting into details just to appease you, though, because you aren't worth the time. You may disagree, but ask yourself, do you think your kids would be safe in one of those institutions if something happened to you? If you say yes, maybe you should really look into the true quality of them.

[Pharaoh]

They may actually take over a nest and raise the young. Yeah sure, if humans present one to them, I want to see more proof of that.


Read the fucking article, you stupid sack of shit. It didn't say anything about zoos or captivity. At least Kuluturekunt acknowlaged the low lesbian STD rates.

The article hardly gives any details at all, you moron.
It should be easy to get some more information if it's a natural occurrence, and that's all I'm asking for, so find it.

[kahljorn]

I've heard jackals are often bi-sexual.

[Kulturkampf]

Should we really be looking towards animals for examples on what we should do? Animals naturally eat their young too. There are def legitmate reasons to let gays adopt but because animals are sometimes gay and care for young sounds like a dumb reason.

this summed it up very well.

I would also think u would be hard pressed to portray animals as being consciously homosexual, and not just confused pricks looking for a good feeling in their groin. Animals are not known for being quite as adept at humans.

[Chojin]

I would also think u would be hard pressed to portray animals as being consciously homosexual, and not just confused pricks looking for a good feeling in their groin.
"Flamingos are a good example" says MacFarlane "Six percent of them actually form male-male pairs that engage in all the same things a male-female couple will engage in, including courtship and parenting. They may actually take over a nest and raise the young."
If parenting gives u good feelings in the groin, someone near u needs to dial social services.

And weren't you the one that brought up 'GAYNESS NOT HAPPEN IN WILD' to begin with?

What is with you creeps? If you're going to be bigoted, at least be honest about it. You don't need to justify yourself, do you?

[kahljorn]

Many insects/reptiles are capable of portraying either gender role in parenting. Which means you often see males impregnated and nursing young.

[Jeanette X]

The article hardly gives any details at all, you moron.
It should be easy to get some more information if it's a natural occurrence, and that's all I'm asking for, so find it.

Forget it. I'm not fucking sifting through all these "Pink Flamingos" movie links I keep getting. You're simply not worth the all the trouble.

[Kulturkampf]

I would also think u would be hard pressed to portray animals as being consciously homosexual, and not just confused pricks looking for a good feeling in their groin.
"Flamingos are a good example" says MacFarlane "Six percent of them actually form male-male pairs that engage in all the same things a male-female couple will engage in, including courtship and parenting. They may actually take over a nest and raise the young."
If parenting gives u good feelings in the groin, someone near u needs to dial social services.

And weren't you the one that brought up 'GAYNESS NOT HAPPEN IN WILD' to begin with?

What is with you creeps? If you're going to be bigoted, at least be honest about it. You don't need to justify yourself, do you?

No, I did not bring up the argument about gayness not happening in the wild. I would agre that it does happen.

However, six per cent of an animal with the brain the size of three of my fingers pressed together is not actually a good measure of what is proper.

94% of flamingos get it right, friend.

I can see how animals do gay acts -- you have a prick or a hole, and you want it to feel good and you don't care what you rub it on as long as it is rubbed; animals can't use their left hands like us, and it would be all the better if they didn't have to.

So animals fag out because they are unaware of how sick they are being.

[Chojin]

What makes it sick?

[Immortal Goat]

They're being gay. DUH! :rolleyes

[Cosmo Electrolux]

What makes it sick?

The Nazi say's it's sick, and don't you dare disgree, you liberal hippy....

[kahljorn]

Tadah:

Here you go everyone!

List of animals practicing homosexual behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)

Animal homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality)

Argue against that, there's a list of like 350 species on that page.

[Chojin]

Guys I already figured this one out :<

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=9262&start=13235

I think Kultur's upset because the other flamingos don't invite him to bridge anymore.

[kahljorn]

It appears to be widespread among insects, birds and mammals, particularly the apes.

That's from the second link ;( Apes have left hands.

[Kulturkampf]

I noted earlier that animals do sex because it feels good, and they do not discriminate; they cannot masturbate so they rub whatever seems pleasant. I tis not a conscious and discriminating drive to have sex as an animal.

Or do some of you think, actually think, that animals are inclined to a literal homosexuality over simple sexual mischief?

They're programmed to feel good at orgasm, and not to discriminate in their taste.

[Immortal Goat]

And, naturally, so are we. Society has put these constraints on us, not nature. I like being straight, but gay people are allowed to like being gay. You have no right to take anything away from them just because of the way they are born.

I'm not going to try and debate this anymore. You are a pathetic excuse for human life, and I'm done with you. Your ignorance is so incredibly deeply rooted that no ammount of education can help you. Some day, you'll be arrested for violence against some minority or other, and then you will be killed by that same minority in prison, and your future wife and children will be better off for it. You are so full of hatred and bigotry that the only cure is a quick, early death. Here's hoping you get it.

[kahljorn]

You should really consider reading the links I post ;(

Many male penguins that mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.

Sounds like a choice/function rather than just wanting to rub up on anything.

[mburbank]

You know what. Kiki? I'm starting to get the impression you don't like Gay Folks. Because they engage in 'gross' acts, and because they are crazy.

I have two questions for you.

1.) How do you feel about the whole Lesbian thing. See, I think if the Lesbians are ugly, that's the same as man gayness, revolting and insane. Anyway, I bet that's what most people think so it's true. BUT, and here's the rub (ha ha, pun intended!) Say the two Lesbians are pretty! Now that is not Gross or insane, it's HOT, and I think the vast majority of men would agree with me here! What do you think about that?

2.) Okay, you are a awsome arguer so I will give over to you the sake of argument. Hence, say Gay people (MEN) are unatural and tend to be crazy. What should we do about this? e can argue all you like, but if it's just about what Gay people are like, well, you say Tomato and I say Tomato. What do you think we should DO about gays (Men and ugly women).

3.) If it is one ugly woman and one pretty one, I would say it is a question o where the observer ispositioned, ala Einstein, to determine the inherent wrongosity of the gay activity.

[Emu]

Are you quoting the Gay Guide to Relativity or did you just make that up?

[Emu]

I haven't really been paying attention to this thread for about a week now but now that I'm reading over it it seems like this thread is turning into one giant naturalistic fallacy.

[kahljorn]

Yea, that's what it always comes down to when people start claiming things are unnatural. Kind of a dumb thing to do considering how ambiguous nature is, but these perceptual debates are always fun.

[ziggytrix]

You know what's really unnatural?



Corn nuts.



I don't care if the Indians made em before we took this continent, they are just gross and wrong.

[Immortal Goat]

I like Corn Nuts. What are you going to do about it? Take away my ability to adopt? >:

[ziggytrix]

You can adopt if you swear an oath not to teach them your abhorrent ways.

[Immortal Goat]

But it's not like I CHOSE to like Corn Nuts. I can't help it, they're so gosh darn tasty. And if my adopted kids like corn nuts, too, I'll love them just the same.

[CosmoToad]

Whats wrong with corn nuts now? :boohoo

[Kulturkampf]

And, naturally, so are we. Society has put these constraints on us, not nature. I like being straight, but gay people are allowed to like being gay. You have no right to take anything away from them just because of the way they are born.

I'm not going to try and debate this anymore. You are a pathetic excuse for human life, and I'm done with you. Your ignorance is so incredibly deeply rooted that no ammount of education can help you. Some day, you'll be arrested for violence against some minority or other, and then you will be killed by that same minority in prison, and your future wife and children will be better off for it. You are so full of hatred and bigotry that the only cure is a quick, early death. Here's hoping you get it.

I laugh.

"I am not going to debate you, and I hope that you die."

[Kulturkampf]

You should really consider reading the links I post ;(

Many male penguins that mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.

Sounds like a choice/function rather than just wanting to rub up on anything.

I am sure that the penguins used their abstract reasoning and rationale to come to this conclusion.

Weren't these penguins in zoos?

And furthermore, man is not a penguin.

[Immortal Goat]

I'm actually doing you a favor by not debating you. You do not seem to have the ability to debate on any topic intelligently, and whenever someone presents real, unbiased facts against your bigoted, hateful arguments, you fall back on the old "you're a LIBERAL" defense. Now, with my refusal to debate you, that just means you look that much less like an idiot.

Oh, and the death thing? Yeah, this is a MOCKERY site. I was mocking you. Get it? Of course not. You're still trying to comprehend the idea of "intelligent debate". Ok, I'll give you a little longer to try and understand what I just said. Just don't take too long, though. You might miss your appointment at the tattoo parlor.

[Chojin]

Gayness is not natural.

Animals do it.

Humans aren't animals.

Yes they are.

Animals aren't sentient.

How would one determine if human homosexuality is natural?

Science.

Science says it is natural.

Scientists are liberals.

So how-

Praise Jesus.

[kahljorn]

"And furthermore, man is not a penguin."

"I guess that's just human nature, even if you're a penguin!"

THE THREE CABALLEROS

"Weren't these penguins in zoos?"

If you clicked the link and read it you might discover the truth to that. But as far as I know... no.

"I am sure that the penguins used their abstract reasoning and rationale to come to this conclusion."

I... I couldn't believe it! there i was standing face to face with a flying jackass!
Sorry, too lazy to find a picture. If anyone wants to throw in the flying donkey from the three cabalerros for me, please.

I'm sure human beings use their abstract reasoning and rationale to come to the decision they are gay too, huh? That's why you got all those mathematicians out there trying to solve Gay.

[Kulturkampf]

Gayness is not natural.

Animals do it.

Humans aren't animals.

That was one part of the argument, Yuo never saw the whole argument in the least.

"Animals occasionally engage in homosexual activities because they only know the pleasure they feel, and have no regard towards how they obtain it; animals simply sex it up, and they do not particularly care."

And the last bit was: "Humans aren't animals, by the way, sothe argument overall is not applicable."

Yes they are.

Animals aren't sentient.

We never got this far.

How would one determine if human homosexuality is natural?

Science.[

Science says it is natural.

Scientists are liberals.

So how-

Praise Jesus.

No.

Not at all.

Science ha snot determined whether it is environmentally learned or naturally occurring, and in either case it does not strengthen your case.

Nor do any of you confrotn facts and statistics about the mental difficutlies and problems other than "society doesnt' like them so they feel bad."

I think your head is up your ass.

[mburbank]

I would never put my head up my ass, because I am a man so that would be gay. Gayness is mentl illness, and I am not mentally ill. If I were a boy it would be all right, or if I were a pretty woman, since sex between pretty women is widely thougt to be hot and so is not mentally ill.

But I am confused. Is it all right to stick my head up a female penguin as long as it feels good? I mean, if there wer spikes inside her, obviously that would be sick, but what about if I were medically sure there were no spikes? I'm not an animal, but I do think penguins are kind of asking for it.

[kahljorn]

Ugh. Humans are animals, we share the same sexual functions of the brain with them. We share the same psychological complexes. We share just about everything, that's why human beings are called MAMMALS because they are ANIMALS. Get it? Don't put yourself on a pedestal, if I remember right human beings are only a few genes away from being a chimp.
Secondly, if you had read both of the links I clicked you would've noticed that these types of relationships aren't only about sex but also about PARENTING. That's right, these homosexual pairs would often act as parents-- along with other paired roles. Go read them, maybe, and shut your mouth.

Even within the human realm sex isn't about logic or rationale. When was the last time you saw someone sitting around logically thinking about it rather than going, "Hey, I want to get laid." Why? Because it makes them feel good. All your points are invalid, just like you. You know they have homes where they take care of people like you, right?
Also, if you noticed they also said homosexual behavior is particularly prevelant among APES. Apes are pretty close to humans, interestingly enough.

Now then, i notice your arguments tend to trail off. First you argue the point the people make(when of course you're the one saying it's unnatural), then when they prove you wrong again, you start going "Who cares that point's invalid they aren't humans anyway". Well who cares, fuck face, they are completely valid because that makes it a NATURALLY OCCURING THING in nature. So even if it "Doesn't apply to humans" you now have to find a new argument and a new reason to hate them. Also, HUMANS ARE ANIMALS and HUMANS ALSO HAVE SEX FOR PLEASURE. Why do you think they do it? For fun? For mating? You name a reason why they have sex, besides pleasure. Hey, maybe gay people have sex explicitely to bother you and other homophobes. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it feels good though. Nobody has sex because it feels good. That's why there's millions of people having sex before marriage.
Dumbass.

[Emu]

if I remember right human beings are only a few genes away from being a chimp.

Humans share about 98-99% of their DNA with the chimpanzee, and about as much with the Bonobo, which is a highly sexual animal that regularly engages in homosexual behavior -- in fact, it only engages in heterosexual behavior when the females are in estrus.

Also, there's more genetic variation between two random people than there is between any human and a chimpanzee.

[kahljorn]

Thank you, sir.

[Chojin]

I don't know about you sickos, but every time I want to bump uglies it's because I spent the last two hours reading about the merits of family values to get it up.

[kahljorn]

The same with me when I read the latest gay media coverage and latest gay literature. We're not so different, are we?