Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I don't know who to respond to...because you've all been banned.Should I make a blanket statment or one based on your own stupidity?
I think it would be best to make a blanket statement based on Dragonfits (AKA Dargonfist) stupidity. It might take a blanket to cover it completly.
Originally posted by Dragonfist1982
marriage is a right that should not be denied to anyone, age, gender, race or family relationship should not play a factor in who you can fall in love with.
I agree. Personally I'm against the incest thing. But that's just my personal preference, and it should not be forced on other people.
Morality, rules, and standards of any kind should not be forced on the institutuion of marriage. If two people love each other, they should have the right to get married, and the government needs to change the laws to make it so ALL people have the right to marry who they want.
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.
Okay went through the links last night.
See...A falsehood in the first couple of sentences. It was the American Psyciatric Association. There are 2 APAs. The American Psychological Association follows even more of the homosexual agenda than the people who actually changed the definition of homosexuality IN RESPONSE to tremendous political pressures and threats. There might be a reference in the links already sent.
"Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument."
Here's another lie. There isn't any genetic evidence whatsoever.
Anatomical differences are only true in the instance of hermaphrodites. Other differences are as likely to indicate that homosexual *behavior* has an impact on a person's physiology, even damaging their brains...however EVEN THESE supposed anatomical differences amount to modern-day PHRENOLOGY (look it up and laugh) or represent research that cannot be duplicated by others.
Not sure about the endocrine evidence...
"Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test..."
I already gave you the site that completely debunked her fraud.
"Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. "
Swaab's research failed upon attempts to duplicate the results. Worse...even if it were true, it suggests that homosexual behavior causes brain damage...the anatomical differences he noticed in the brain.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/gay/brainsga.htm
Brain tissue from individuals known to be homosexual has only become available as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Nevertheless, the use of this tissue source raises several problems. First, it does not provide tissue from homosexual women because this group has not been affected by the epidemic to any great extent. Thus, the prediction that INAH 3 is larger in homosexual than in heterosexual women remains untested. Second, there is the possibility that the small size of INAH 3 in the homosexual men is the result of AIDS o
A third problem is that possibility that AIDS patients constitute an unrepresentative subset of gay men, characterized, for example, by a tendency to engage in sexual relations with large numbers of different partners or by a strong preference for the receptive role in anal intercourse [both of which are major risk factors for acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (13)].
The existence of "exceptions" in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones) hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size.
The first attempts to classify homosexuality as a disease were made by the fledgling European sexologist movement in the late nineteenth century. In 1886 noted sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebig listed homosexuality along with 200 other case studies of deviant sexual practices in his definitive work, Psycopathia Sexualis. In his work Sexual Inversion Havelock Ellis first theorised on the origins of homosexuality, proposing that homosexuals, or 'inverts', were the product of a combination of upbringing and biological factors and that those not predisposed to homosexuality could become so if they had 'weak characters' and were so influenced.
========
His information has never been debunked.
So far you guys don't have any decent arguments here. Most of you resort to putting forth an opinion instead of facts.
Homosexuality, is often found in conjunction with other paraphilias. .
I should point out that many homosexuals feel they are successful given their belief that they can force homosexuality upon the nation through brainwashing and psuedoscience.
I have to ask what educational value one-sided sexual themes have other than brainwashing?
http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_str...r_the_ball.htm
From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." - Penguin Books, 1989 pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen
What Kirk and Madsen lay out is a brainwashing campaign.
Originally posted by Redwolf
Okay went through the links last night.See...A falsehood in the first couple of sentences. It was the American Psyciatric Association. There are 2 APAs. The American Psychological Association follows even more of the homosexual agenda than the people who actually changed the definition of homosexuality IN RESPONSE to tremendous political pressures and threats. There might be a reference in the links already sent.
[B]"Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument."
Here's another lie. There isn't any genetic evidence whatsoever.
Anatomical differences are only true in the instance of hermaphrodites. Other differences are as likely to indicate that homosexual *behavior* has an impact on a person's physiology, even damaging their brains...however EVEN THESE supposed anatomical differences amount to modern-day PHRENOLOGY (look it up and laugh) or represent research that cannot be duplicated by others.
Not sure about the endocrine evidence...
"Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test..."
I already gave you the site that completely debunked her fraud.
"Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. "
Swaab's research failed upon attempts to duplicate the results. Worse...even if it were true, it suggests that homosexual behavior causes brain damage...the anatomical differences he noticed in the brain.
Brain tissue from individuals known to be homosexual has only become available as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Nevertheless, the use of this tissue source raises several problems. First, it does not provide tissue from homosexual women because this group has not been affected by the epidemic to any great extent. Thus, the prediction that INAH 3 is larger in homosexual than in heterosexual women remains untested. Second, there is the possibility that the small size of INAH 3 in the homosexual men is the result of AIDS o
A third problem is that possibility that AIDS patients constitute an unrepresentative subset of gay men, characterized, for example, by a tendency to engage in sexual relations with large numbers of different partners or by a strong preference for the receptive role in anal intercourse [both of which are major risk factors for acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (13)].
The existence of "exceptions" in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones) hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size.
The first attempts to classify homosexuality as a disease were made by the fledgling European sexologist movement in the late nineteenth century. In 1886 noted sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebig listed homosexuality along with 200 other case studies of deviant sexual practices in his definitive work, Psycopathia Sexualis. In his work Sexual Inversion Havelock Ellis first theorised on the origins of homosexuality, proposing that homosexuals, or 'inverts', were the product of a combination of upbringing and biological factors and that those not predisposed to homosexuality could become so if they had 'weak characters' and were so influenced.
========
His information has never been debunked.
So far you guys don't have any decent arguments here. Most of you resort to putting forth an opinion instead of facts.
Homosexuality, is often found in conjunction with other paraphilias. .
I should point out that many homosexuals feel they are successful given their belief that they can force homosexuality upon the nation through brainwashing and psuedoscience.
I have to ask what educational value one-sided sexual themes have other than brainwashing?
From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s." - Penguin Books, 1989 pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter MadsenWhat Kirk and Madsen lay out is a brainwashing campaign. [/B]
No people are born that way. No one would choose to be a paedophile, or to have sex with an animal. And no one chooses their sexual preference. Its innate. Even Freud mentioned it. You don't understand what gay people think. You don't understand, the loathing a person feels to have sex with things that the law considers illegal. The law needs to legalize what people are attracted to sexually, so people don't have to feel bad about themselves anymore.
Originally posted by Redwolf
Okay went through the links last night.
No people are born that way. No one would choose to be a paedophile, or to have sex with an animal. And no one chooses their sexual preference. Its innate. Even Freud mentioned it. You don't understand what gay people think. You don't understand, the loathing a person feels to have sex with things that the law considers illegal. The law needs to legalize what people are attracted to sexually, so people don't have to feel bad about themselves anymore.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So far he hasn't tried being a coservative homosexual Christian female.
If whob really wanted to fool members, he wouldn't come right out of the gate with his new image. He would sit idly for two weeks and pretend to be some new goof like Osaka, and then pounce after the general consensus accepts his new identity as just some naive kid.
Maybe he beat me to that idea...maybe it is him.
Originally posted by Redwolf
Okay went through the links last night.See...A falsehood in the first couple of sentences. It was the American Psyciatric Association. There are 2 APAs. The American Psychological Association follows even more of the homosexual agenda than the people who actually changed the definition of homosexuality IN RESPONSE to tremendous political pressures and threats. There might be a reference in the links already sent.
That is all very well and good, but you will realise, I am sure, that not a single national psychological association in western nations still classify homosexuality as deviancy, mental illness or maladjustment. Nor does any psychological association in a western nation claim it is possible to change a persons sexual orientation.
"Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument."Here's another lie. There isn't any genetic evidence whatsoever.[/b]
That isn't necessarily true. The correct statement there is "there is no 100% conclusive evidence." There is genetic evidence, but it is not, due to a number of factors, deemed conclusive at this point in time. This is vastly different from "there is no genetic evidence full stop."
And the sites posted referenced other researchers who have found similar findings.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml
Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics have asserted claims for a genetic basis of numerous physical behaviors, including homosexuality, aggression, impulsivity, and nurturing. A growing scientific and popular focus on genes and behavior has contributed to a resurgence of behavioral genetic determinism—the belief that genetics is the major factor in determining behavior.
"Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test..."I already gave you the site that completely debunked her fraud.
Please tell me the situation surrounding her debunking and the qualifications and impartiality of those who did it.
Swaab's research failed upon attempts to duplicate the results. Worse...even if it were true, it suggests that homosexual behavior causes brain damage...the anatomical differences he noticed in the brain.
Once again there is a difference between a scientific experiment that provides conflicting evidence, and one that has failed. For the anit-Swaab lobby to be able to claim conclusively his findings were wrong they would, per scientific process, have to replicate it a number of times an each to to produce a result that was the negative of the original finding. This, to my knowledge, is not the case. Overall it has been deemed inconclusive without further testing.
And differences in the brains anatomy do no equal brain damage. Brain damage, ot be official, requires certain features to be classified as such, simple differences from the anatomical norm are not enough.
Brain tissue from individuals known to be homosexual has only become available as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Nevertheless, the use of this tissue source raises several problems. First, it does not provide tissue from homosexual women because this group has not been affected by the epidemic to any great extent. Thus, the prediction that INAH 3 is larger in homosexual than in heterosexual women remains untested. Second, there is the possibility that the small size of INAH 3 in the homosexual men is the result of AIDS
Once again this is called "inconclusive" not simply false.
A third problem is that possibility that AIDS patients constitute an unrepresentative subset of gay men, characterized, for example, by a tendency to engage in sexual relations with large numbers of different partners or by a strong preference for the receptive role in anal intercourse [both of which are major risk factors for acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (13)].
The reference to the promiscuous sexual habits of aid suffering males, is, to my knowledge, considered erroneous portrayal of inconclusive polling data. There was no evidence in retrospect that a homosexual with aids was likely to engage in larger numbers of intercourse then a homosexual without aids, or a homosexual in general.
The existence of "exceptions" in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones) hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size.
Thus what you have just presented is not evidence to the contrary of homosexuality being natural, but rather merely pointing out that as of yet the evidence for it is not 100% conclusive.
His information has never been debunked.
Not debunked? If it hadn't been debunked homosexuality would still be considered a psychological problem - which it isn't, as above, since not a single psychological association maintains it upon it's registrar of psychological maladies. Likewise, I would point out those who openly do oppose his, and later similar, works point out he was operating from an incorrect hypothesis and a potentially religious one (that the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation, not enjoyment) - care to mention what his view of rape was?
Hrm, why was Dragonfist banned? 😕
Anywho, I think the argument killer is that gay marriage should legalized, simply because a) Separation of Church and State: Many people argue against gay marriage from a religious stand point, which is invalid in a democracy and b) Personal Hang-Ups: Ooooh, so gay guys are gross, eh? Oh, I'm sorry, let us pamper you by zapping their rights.