[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
[b]# those who have suffered traumatic events in their lifetime such as child abuse and sexual abuse[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 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. 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.