Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Capt. Fantastic is right though - posting about the scientific validity of homosexuality is well supported in the "homosexual: Chosen or Genetic" thread if you care to look. Nods to MyOwn Muse who posted this just the other day:Hahahaha. I know, I know. People in the US have actually had the chance to vote on it, haven't they? It hasn't just be decided by the US government.
I have no idea what you are on about - genetically it is decided, physically it is decided...
And out of interest, could you try to keep your arguments in a single post instead of three or four at once? This is understandable if you have a lot to post, but when one of them contains a single line?
I've seen those Imperial Samurai, but thats not good enough. I'd like the direct links to the websites with the info, not second hand versions. Also sorry for posting so many replies.
Originally posted by Redwolf
I've seen those Imperial Samurai, but thats not good enough. I'd like the direct links to the websites with the info, not second hand versions. Also sorry for posting so many replies.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
Originally thought by the American Psychological Association (hereafter referred to as APA) to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women"
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980).
http://www.psychdaily.com/encyclopedia.php?term=Homosexuality+and+psychology
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality "does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder." ......As discussed above, the concept of 'curing homosexuality' or 'homosexuality as a disease' has been largely dismissed by mental health professionals. However, there persists a religious movement expounding an 'alternative' psychology that still regards homosexuality as a disorder and one that is curable through 'conversion' or reparative therapies.
These sites reference many scientific studies and quote them and would generally been seen as permissible sites in regards to unbiased information regarding your questions on homosexuality as a mental illness and the link between homosexuality and child molestation.
Originally posted by Syren
Has anyone provided definitive proof that it's not a natural occurrence? It's their sexual orientation, right? The way that they feel, the urges they have, the emotions they deal with, right? Are you saying that every gay person is putting on an act? And if so, may I ask why?There's a line here, one that most people can see quite clearly and would never cross. You can't group the two; people can love people no matter their gender but when it comes to animals I think you'll find most of us would take a negative stance. It's not a viable argument, really. As for the underage child view, aren't we talking about two consenting adults here anyway?
[b]
A child is best raised by a man and a woman in a world where people take your viewpoint, yes. But what about a world where people learn to have a more open-minded and accommodating view, which, in my opinion, would be more beneficial to the younger generations. Talk about putting a limit on learning and understanding. If I ever have children I hope they'll be comfortably introduced to the way the world works and the differences it supports. I won't allow my children to be ignorant through choice.
[b]
A deviant lifestyle? What, because it's different to yours? How in the hell does it make it deviant? You're laying heavy judgement down on people who live differently because they can't produce scientific evidence that their choices weren't made just to piss people like you off. That's just plain obnoxious.
So a child is best raised not by a man and woman, who says? It's natural for there to be a male and female figure in the life of a child. I have provided links for this view.
It is a deviant lifestlye Homosexuality is a deviation from normal human sexuality. One who practices it is by definition a "deviant." The fact that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals are born gay it is a deviant lifestyle
We live in a scientific age, when someone claims they are born gay yet can't back up the claim with scientific evidence an intelligent person isn't going to buy it. Claiming you are born gay and it's "natural" without scientific evidence is as bad as young earth creationists claiming the Universe and earth are only 6,000 years old, when scientific evidence says otherwise
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
http://www.psychdaily.com/encyclopedia.php?term=Homosexuality+and+psychology
These sites reference many scientific studies and quote them and would generally been seen as permissible sites in regards to unbiased information regarding your questions on homosexuality as a mental illness and the link between homosexuality and child molestation.
Thank you, this is what I've been asking for. Instead of opinion I wanted scientific studies from the other side. I'll read over them tonight.
Originally posted by Redwolf
So a child is best raised not by a man and woman, who says? It's natural for there to be a male and female figure in the life of a child. I have provided links for this view.
I didn't say a child was best raised not by a man and woman, I said it's not your place to decide that only a man and woman are fit to raise a child.
It is a deviant lifestlye Homosexuality is a deviation from normal human sexuality. One who practices it is by definition a "deviant." The fact that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals are born gay it is a deviant lifestyle.
Yes. They are deviating from what might be considered 'the norm', but this offends you? You're referring to homosexual people as though they are some kind of stain on the face of humanity, like they need to be cleansed, retrained and reintroduced into your idea of a perfect society. I don't understand this viewpoint.
We live in a scientific age, when someone claims they are born gay yet can't back up the claim with scientific evidence an intelligent person isn't going to buy it. Claiming you are born gay and it's "natural" without scientific evidence is as bad as young earth creationists claiming the Universe and earth are only 6,000 years old, when scientific evidence says otherwise
"An intelligent person isn't going to buy into it."
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. Buy into what, exactly? It's not as though we're discussing the potential of life on another planet, and whether there is sufficient evidence to back up these claims. There are gay people within society, they should be allowed the same rights as straight people and they really are not any different. Still humans first and foremost, still perfectly sane and still allowed to live as normal a life as possible. Preferably without interruptions from arrogant, deluded bigots. Naming no names. You think you're one of the 'intelligent people' who refuses to 'buy into' this novelty idea, haha, of homosexuality? From where I'm standing you're an ignorant fool.
THANK YOU Imperial_Samura for referencing my post...I've been trying to hunt down Redwolf whilst waving it on a few occasions now...
Here is the link to the actual scientific paper(because I can post links now, yay!), published in the June 3, 2005 edition of Cell:
http://www.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/pdf/olf/Dros-courtship-neurocircuit-Stockinger-Dickson-etal-Cell-2005.pdf
This is kind of a mess to read through. Searching with the keywords "Drosophila sex gene Barry Dickson" in google will get you a number of hits for pop articles about the article. Here's one:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/?id=330840
Enjoy. And, as I have already mentioned, if anyone has read any updates on that line of research, I would love to read them!
To quote Christopher Ott...
"...you also have to wonder if he and other opponents to equal rights really understand the consequences of the amendments they support. Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years does not deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?"
Re: To quote Christopher Ott...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"...you also have to wonder if he and other opponents to equal rights really understand the consequences of the amendments they support. Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years does not deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?"
beautiful piece of work up there..
blacks used to get the same type of discrimination for just being black, not because of the types of sex they were into..
just because some gays have different types of sex than straights, doesn't mean they are different. love isn't defined by sexual preference anyway. you can choose who you have sex with, but you cant choose to not have sex with the person you love.