[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

astonishing that there are still people who are so afraid of gays that they try to link it with pedophiles.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For the record, ebuddy was arguing the applicability of a slippery slope from one to the other, not that they are "linked."

Correct. While ebuddy thinks homosexuality is a mental illness his argument regarding pedophilia is not that
homosexuality==pedophilia
rather that
arguments in support of accepting homosexuality as a natural-born condition==arguments in support of accepting pedophilia as a natural-born condition
(Or, in other words, if one uses the argument that homosexuality is natural and should be accepted because it is natural then by logic one must apply the same reasoning to pedophilia and accept pedophilia as natural.)

[subego]

I think it was torsoboy who said "linked".

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm OMM, no need to read anything into ebuddy's posts. He has already come out and stated explicitly "that he views homosexuality as a mental illness".

I wasn't reading anything into it; I was merely pointing out how wrong he will be shown to be.

Here's an article showing how awful it is for states to "incentivize" gay marriage.

Gay marriage pays off for Massachusetts | detnews.com | The Detroit News

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure I follow. We have US studies, and their results are somewhat similar.

Sorry, I wasn't able to find any data on that (on the first few pages of my search). Can you?

Yes, we have to empirically determine how much more tolerant NZ is than the US, but whatever that amount is, it doesn't seem to be affecting this particular issue.

Why? Just because the authors of that study don't think so? The authors will always downplay the importance of confounding factors which might invalidate all their work.

As far as I can tell, they're not weighting it. They do consistently lament the small sample size, and have to combine minor same-sex attraction with persistent same-sex attraction to calculate odds.

Ok so do they give the results of comparing the demographics of the various groups? Or do they just say they did the comparison and that is that?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Penguirl 

So then you are ok with having a vote on heterosexual marriage, right?

Marriage is not a right.

[Chongo]

TROLL ALERT
It's all a communist conspiracy!
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record
From Cleon Skousen's Naked Communist and read into the 1963 Congressional record

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

[OldManMac]

The sad thing is there are, no doubt, people who still believe that today. ^

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Correct. While ebuddy thinks homosexuality is a mental illness his argument regarding pedophilia is not that
homosexuality==pedophilia
rather that
arguments in support of accepting homosexuality as a natural-born condition==arguments in support of accepting pedophilia as a natural-born condition
(Or, in other words, if one uses the argument that homosexuality is natural and should be accepted because it is natural then by logic one must apply the same reasoning to pedophilia and accept pedophilia as natural.)

ok my bad

but to say homosexuality is a mental illness is still caveman thinking

[Kerrigan]

Seeing as how the premier governing body of the psychiatric profession states that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I'm going to guess that it is not, in fact, a mental illness.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Seeing as how the premier governing body of the psychiatric profession states that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I'm going to guess that it is not, in fact, a mental illness.

Eh, what do they know?

ebuddy will no doubt tell you that they just removed the diagnosis due to political pressure.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Seeing as how the premier governing body of the psychiatric profession states that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I'm going to guess that it is not, in fact, a mental illness.

That's #39 and #39!

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Seeing as how the premier governing body of the psychiatric profession states that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I'm going to guess that it is not, in fact, a mental illness.

Seeing how the removal of homosexuality as being a mental illness was a political act, brought upon by the left leaning "intellectual elite" about 30 years ago, I'm not sure whether or not the "premier governing body of the psychiatric profession" should be taken seriously as far as scientific determinations go.

[OldManMac]

Well, I was wrong; "stupendousman" beat ebuddy to it. Should have seen that coming. After all, he and ebuddy know more than the mental health community. Funny stuff.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That being said, wouldn't a relatively small number of humans acting in ways that would suggest gender confusion, be rationally thought of having as some kind of illness or disorder? Strip away the political correctness, and actually look at it in scientific terms and I don't see how it can be viewed any other way.

Looking at behavior and seeing what it suggests sounds about as unscientific as you can get.

Just to be clear, I'm arguing your methodology, not your conclusion. If you present more rigorous methodology, your conclusion deserves an equally thorough consideration.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Seeing as how the premier governing body of the psychiatric profession states that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I'm going to guess that it is not, in fact, a mental illness.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Seeing how the removal of homosexuality as being a mental illness was a political act, brought upon by the left leaning "intellectual elite" about 30 years ago, I'm not sure whether or not the "premier governing body of the psychiatric profession" should be taken seriously as far as scientific determinations go.

Neither of these arguments are particularly compelling.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Eh, what do they know?

ebuddy will no doubt tell you that they just removed the diagnosis due to political pressure.

I've apparently gotten to you OldMan. You've relegated yourself my biggest fan. Odd that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Looking at behavior and seeing what it suggests sounds about as unscientific as you can get.

I was being kind. I think it's pretty clear that if a man acts like a woman, and has the typical sexual desires of a woman, that they are suffering from some kind of abnormal sexual gender confusion.

If a man acts like a man, yet still has the typical sexual desires of a women, I'd suppose it could be due to factors other than gender confusion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Well, I was wrong; "stupendousman" beat ebuddy to it. Should have seen that coming. After all, he and ebuddy know more than the mental health community. Funny stuff.

Appeals to authority logical fallacies don't grow more logical due to the size of the authority invoked.

Case in point: the entire "scientific community" ensured us that the Earth was getting hotter, and would continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Some people are smart enough to see through BS. It doesn't take a degree in the area of BS that's being spewed in order to smell it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've apparently gotten to you OldMan. You've relegated yourself my biggest fan. Odd that.

Don't flatter yourself.

It will happen, maybe later than sooner, but it will happen!

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I was being kind. I think it's pretty clear that if a man acts like a woman, and has the typical sexual desires of a woman, that they are suffering from some kind of abnormal sexual gender confusion.

If a man acts like a man, yet still has the typical sexual desires of a women, I'd suppose it could be due to factors other than gender confusion.

My comment more applied to what followed. Poor phrasing on my part.

You didn't didn't provide anything more rigorous in that quote beyond "look at it, and see if it suggests mental illness".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It will happen, maybe later than sooner, but it will happen!

Of course it will. I've not seen anyone in this thread deny it.

It won't stop there either.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You didn't didn't provide anything more rigorous in that quote beyond "look at it, and see if it suggests mental illness".

I agree here. Still, I think it's wise to consider the actual subjects of the issue. I think too much of this has become "anti" and "pro" and with all the discussion of definitions of "marriage" and the like having become a political football of sorts, homosexuals themselves have become lost in all of it. The fact remains that a great many homosexuals, if given the choice to abandon homosexuality would do so in a heartbeat.

I'm not sure denying the mental health component of the issue is "progress", but the reason neither one of the arguments hold a lot of weight is because the answerer is relatively silent. This silence will only increase as the political movement prevails over "looking at it".

[shifuimam]

You know, WRT homosexuality being a mental illness, wouldn't it seem much more likely that true gender confusion that results in drastic action (sex change operation) is more of a mental illness than a person who is simply attracted to the same gender as themselves?

What's ironic here is that a person who gets a sex change operation can marry someone f the same natural gender. If I want to marry a woman, all I have to do is have my boobs cut off and have a penis attached to my crotch. Suddenly, it's okay.

Anyone see the lack of logic here?

I should also add that mental disorders generally have some kind of negative or debilitating impact on the afflicted. Wikipedia classifies a mental disorder as something that is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expect as part of normal development or culture. If you look at just about any mental disorder in the DSM, they all have various negative impacts on sufferers, sometimes making it impossible to live a normal life. Homosexuality doesn't fall under that description. It doesn't negatively impact those who are homosexual, and it doesn't really negatively impact people around homosexuals.

Homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean "gender confusion" - there are plenty of gay people who behave the way society expects them to (and you wouldn't even know they were gay unless they told you).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact remains that a great many homosexuals, if given the choice to abandon homosexuality would do so in a heartbeat.

The fact remains that your opinion is pure conjecture.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Correct. While ebuddy thinks homosexuality is a mental illness his argument regarding pedophilia is not that
homosexuality==pedophilia
rather that
arguments in support of accepting homosexuality as a natural-born condition==arguments in support of accepting pedophilia as a natural-born condition
(Or, in other words, if one uses the argument that homosexuality is natural and should be accepted because it is natural then by logic one must apply the same reasoning to pedophilia and accept pedophilia as natural.)

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok my bad

but to say homosexuality is a mental illness is still caveman thinking

I agree completely. I think saying homosexuality is a mental illness is primitive, regressive, emotion-based thinking.

This is not to say that arguing for same-sex marriage rights from the standpoint of confirming the love between two individuals is not primitive and emotion-based thinking as well. In fact, I think it is, I think wanting same-sex marriage laws simply to validate the act of love between two individuals is primitive and emotion-based thinking. The law is not to validate relationships but rather to ensure equality of rights among all individuals. That is why I, dcmacdaddy, advocate for same-sex marriage laws to be implemented by the state, so as to ensure same-sex couples have the same legal rights (death benefits, hospital visitation rights, contract enforcement, etc.) as opposite-sex couples. These are legal rights held by married couples apart from any "affirmative actions" provided by the state to married couples for the sake of promoting good child-rearing.

Having said that, I would like to see the government do away with involvement in all marriage and grant everyone civil unions and allow the practice of marriage to be the sole domain of religious organisations.

[ironknee]

The fact remains that a great many homosexuals, if given the choice to abandon homosexuality would do so in a heartbeat.

well why don't they just do it? you people think it's just a choice right?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still, I think it's wise to consider the actual subjects of the issue... The fact remains that a great many homosexuals, if given the choice to abandon homosexuality would do so in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't say this is implausible, as some would try and lead you to believe, although the scope of "great many" is a little nebulous.

Judging by their reported mental health in the Dutch study, Danish homosexual women seem pretty well adjusted, so I'm not sure they'd take you up on the offer.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact remains that a great many homosexuals, if given the choice to abandon homosexuality would do so in a heartbeat.

What's stopping them? Anne Heche did it.

If your attractions change over time, there's nothing wrong with that. You aren't bound to one gender attraction for life.

I'm confused as to how you've come to the conclusion that (a) homosexuals don't want to be gay, and (b) homosexuals HAVE to be gay for life.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm confused as to how you've come to the conclusion that (a) homosexuals don't want to be gay, and (b) homosexuals HAVE to be gay for life.

(a) Some homosexuals wish they weren't gay.
(b) Many homosexuals say they have no choice in the matter, one would presume in a manner similar to the way many heterosexuals say they feel.

Disclaimer: not necessarily ebuddy's answers.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What's stopping them? Anne Heche did it.

This ticks off a lot of homosexuals.

Most oppressed groups come up with their own form of oppression they take out members of the group more readily able to intermingle with "regular" society. That's my take on what's going on here, at least in part.

It gets really out of control in the transgendered community.

Word for the day: cisgendered. For when your biology and your identity do match up. Arguments over whether this applies only if you're "born" that way are still heated.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

well why don't they just do it? you people think it's just a choice right?

Why don't you ask your new superhero turned Democrat who opposes gay marriage what "us people" think?

Still, I think Specter probably believes it's a mental health issue and that they cannot help it. Much like alcoholism and pedophilia with their equally dismal "conversion" rates.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What's stopping them? Anne Heche did it.

Is this the Anne Heche who believed her other personality was Celestia, who was from another planet and spoke in a different language directly with God? I'm not marginalizing her struggle, don't get me wrong. She endured familial dysfunction the likes of which no one should. She can do whatever she wants, but if she's going to appeal to the State for an incentive, she'll have to stand still for a sec.

If your attractions change over time, there's nothing wrong with that. You aren't bound to one gender attraction for life.

No, you're certainly not, but the fact remains that there are a wealth of homosexuals struggling with their condition and don't want to be gay. You've associated with homosexuals right? Have they given you their stories about 8 years of counseling to deal with homosexuality and what to do about the wife and kids he had? These stories abound.

I'm confused as to how you've come to the conclusion that (a) homosexuals don't want to be gay, and (b) homosexuals HAVE to be gay for life.

I've never come to either conclusion.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why don't you ask your new superhero turned Democrat who opposes gay marriage what "us people" think?

I wasn't talking about Specter but ok he's into the mental issue.

I was talking about why gay people don't abandon their lifestyle as you stated. Why don't they?

The fact remains that a great many homosexuals, if given the choice to abandon homosexuality would do so in a heartbeat.

And as for the "you people" comment, am I wrong to say that a lot of conservatives think that being gay is a choice?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still, I think Specter probably believes it's a mental health issue and that they cannot help it. Much like alcoholism and pedophilia with their equally dismal "conversion" rates.

one more thing, alcoholics and pedophiles marry all the time

[Penguirl]

Seems I truly am a Fresh Faced Recruit, you Professionals and Addicts are prodigious posters!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's equally little to suggest alcoholism is "curable". Pedophiles even less so. Are these not disorders in your opinion?

Alcoholism is genetic, it is considered a disorder because of it's negative impact on the alcoholic's life. If alcoholism had no negative impact on the individual or society, no one would care. Pedophilia obviously devastates the lives of it's victims, who are unable to render consent in the first place. Homosexuality is not a disorder, the only negative impact on a homosexuals life is external. It is society that manufactures a problem where there is none.

Those who do not successfully beat alcoholism for example, experience dire relapses. I appreciate you having come late to the thread, but you accuse me of being redundant below while reiterating the same tired arguments we've already addressed. I'd have an easier time understanding this if you were saying you didn't feel they've been addressed or that you were tired of the entire discussion, but you present the above as if it were fresh.

Fresh or not, it's an illogical argument. Apples and oranges.

I disagree with the statement as a whole. There is a combination of societal pressures, familial rejection, etc... but there is also the conflict itself. Suicide rates in countries with far more tolerance for homosexuality remain exponentially higher, like in New Zealand for example where the rates match the US rate of attempted suicide among gays. There are several studies showing that in fact the majority of suicide attempts follow the breakup of a gay relationship and in second place; inability to accept one's self.

I would love to see unbiased statistics to back this statement up.

This is simply not true as evidenced by the attempted suicide rates among gays in regions of higher tolerance.

Again, unbiased statistics please.

The same as yours. I support civil unions for any two who wish to marry. I took issue with the notion that there are NO reasons to oppose gay marriage and that NONE of those reasons have merit and that ALL of those who oppose it are bigoted. I disagree and can do so without the ad homs.

Civil union is second class status. Few straight couples would feel that they had equal rights if they could only have civil unions while the gay couples were married. If a large segment of the homosexual community were opposed to heterosexual marriage, would you take issue with the notion that there are NO reasons to oppose straight marriage and that NONE of those reasons have merit and that ALL of those who oppose it are bigoted?

No. It is a recruiting and retention tool. Having moved from conscription to "all volunteer" it was a conscious decision to intensify recruitment efforts to encourage the military as a career opportunity. The ideal was that they had to be convinced, not conscripted. The benefits of the GI Bill have been re-packaged as an incentive to join as are a wealth of other benefits and incentives.

Lieutenant Commander John B White; US Naval Reserve, Ph. D. "The GI Bill: Recruiting Bonus, Retention Onus." Military Review, July-August 2004; "The GI Bill is no longer a reward for service rendered, but an inducement to serve and has become a significant part of recruiters’ pitches.”

I'll agree to disagree with both you and Lt. Commander White.

The definition of "civil rights" must be tempered by acknowledging that membership in institutions is not constitutionally guaranteed. Your State legislature for example is a closed system. You do not get to join and vote on bills simply because you're an opinionated American. My friend, civil rights are inalienable. This means they cannot be granted by government nor taken away. These are the rights that slaves did not have, such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble... Membership in the AARP is no more a right than having a government job.

That's not an accurate comparison. What would be accurate would be if only heterosexual people were eligible to serve in the state legislature and homosexuals were not. AARP is a private organization and falls under different standards, but if government jobs were only open to heterosexuals then you would have a more accurate comparison.

Yes they are, under the law.

From your perspective maybe, but it looks very different from the other side of the fence.

If it's not about happiness, then we can kindly remove the argument above regarding "pursuit of happiness". Marriage is not a civil right. Equal legal treatment would remove "hate crimes" legislation for example. There's also nothing to suggest that all must be regarded equally. If this were the case, I'd be getting Social Security, A GI BIll, membership in AARP and a government paycheck each month.

If marriage is not a civil right, are you saying it's a privilege? Like having a driver's license? So can we now not issue driver's licenses to homosexuals because they are somehow inherently not worthy of that privilege?

Stating that equal treatment regarding civil rights entitles everyone to Social Security, GI Bill, AARP membership and a government job is just silly. Those are not civil rights. SS is for those that paid into it, GI Bill is earned (not rewarded up front), AARP, again, is a private organization, and government jobs, like any other jobs, are (usually) given to those most qualified to perform them who go through the hiring process. Not civil rights.

They're not being subjugated any more than I am by not using the GI Bill.

Again, apples and oranges. The GI Bill is earned by military service. How is marriage earned? By being born straight? That is what is discriminatory about it! Straight people do not have to earn the right to marry, they have it inherently. To deny someone else the same right based on how they were born is discriminatory.

This is your opinion and not supported by any empirical evidence. No gay gene has been identified. Differences such as abnormal sexual orientation and conflicted gender identity are the product of psychosocial/environmental factors. This has been identified.

Evidence please? I am less familiar with the homosexual research, but I can give you evidence that shows that gender identity is likely biological, at the very least there is no evidence to conclusively say that it is "the product of psychosocial/environmental factors." BBC NEWS | Health | Transsexual gene link identified Transsexualism [ Part I ] Transsexualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GRAPHIC: Sexx and Sexism, part I Intersexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about intersex (formerly known as hermaphrodite) individuals? Were they born with mixed or indeterminate genitalia because of psychosocial or environmental factors? Homosexuality, intersex, and transgenderism have existed since the dawn of man. Homosexuality and intersex also exist in the animal kingdom (animals are likely not self aware enough to know if their sex and gender are mis-matched), are those also a result of psychosocial/environmental factors?

How many homosexual or transsexual people have you talked to about their orientation or identity? I've talked to quite a few, and the overwhelmingly vast majority say they that at the very least they knew they were different at a an early age, most knew how they were different but didn't understand why. This is prior to any trauma and in "normal" homes. My own parents were a child psychologist and a social worker, but in spite of that I knew I was not a boy when I was about five. But I digress.

Dumplin', homosexuality was removed from the DSM because of what was construed as the harmful nature of the diagnosis itself

Yes, because the "diagnosis" was what was causing harm and stigmatization, not the "condition" itself.

and political pressure. I might add that this classification was removed from the DSM under much protest from the scientific community at the time. As many as four years after the APA vote, 69% of psychiatrists cited homosexuality as a "pathological adaptation." No other such disorder had been reconsidered on these factors nor with as little consideration and discussion. It would be at least another two decades before this would become the consensus view internationally albeit for the same reasons having nothing to do with solid, empirical evidence to the contrary.

And what does the scientific community say today? Is homosexuality still considered a disorder? Not by the majority of the scientific community. Knowledge is evolutionary, there was a time that we thought asbestos was safe. Now we know better.

You have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. This is a popular talking point because people (particularly those advocating legalizing gay marriage) know how important the genetic factor is in acceptance of the condition.

See links above. If you have conclusive proof that homosexuality is a mental illness and not a result of biology, I'd sure like to see it.

They do so by marginalizing the African-American plight in this country.

Yes, some do, however I do not support that position. Gay is not the new black, it is it's own issue.

Have you availed yourself of any statistics on the success rate for "curing" alcoholism or pedophilia? Should we simply throw our hands in the air and encourage those who aren't pedophiles and alcoholics to be more accepting?

Apples and oranges, again. Homosexuality, between consenting adults, harms no one. The same cannot be said of alcoholism or pedophillia.

With all due respect, this is woefully naive. We hold people to varying standards all day, every day. From the government on down.

I meant in their personal relationships. Who someone dates or marries, with regard to race, religion, sex, orientation, identity, etc… is not relevant to anyone else. Should we make interracial marriage illegal again?

I can't have the same tax benefit as everyone else. I can no longer serve in the military. I can't have the GI Bill. I can't be a Catholic priest because I'm not Catholic. These are all based on varying standards and criteria for institutional membership.

Your tax benefit, ability to serve in the military, lack of access to the GI Bill, and inability to be a Catholic priest all have nothing to do with how you were born. Like getting a job, serving in the military is based on qualifications. We don't qualify heterosexual couples for marriage between consenting adults, and we should not qualify homosexual couples for marriage between consenting adults either.

Nothing you've presented here is fresh. Nothing. Welcome to the discussion.

I feel that stale inaccuracies are worth discussing, I'm sorry if you would rather let them go unchallenged. And thank you, I'm enjoying it immensely.

[Penguirl]

Former Campaign Manager for John McCain Steve Schmidt’s Speech on Gay Marriage & Rights

Supporting Love - Steve Schmidt's speech on Gay Marriage & Rights

[Chongo]

So, what does it make you if you want to "hit" this?


or this?

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Are those balloons on her chest? Sexy and kind of odd at the same time. Don't push too hard on those though, they are likely to pop.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, you're certainly not, but the fact remains that there are a wealth of homosexuals struggling with their condition and don't want to be gay. You've associated with homosexuals right? Have they given you their stories about 8 years of counseling to deal with homosexuality and what to do about the wife and kids he had? These stories abound.

Trouble is, this doesn't apply to everyone.

There are probably plenty of people who identify as homosexual or bisexual who, upon further investigation, have suffered some kind of major childhood trauma - particularly sexual abuse. It's entirely logical to hypothesize that for some in this demographic, homosexual behavior is a manifestation of a greater psychological problem or disturbance.

But this isn't universally or objectively applicable. In actual mental disorders and diseases such as schizophrenia, clinical depression, and bipolar disorder, the symptoms of the disorder objectively manifest themselves in ways that are damaging to the sufferer. A person who suffers from depression due to environmental factors suffers negative effects, as does a person suffering from depression due to a genetic proclivity toward the disorder.

The negative effects of homosexuality, however, are entirely a social construct. The suicide rate among homosexual teenagers is high not because homosexuality is a mental disorder, but because of the terribly bullying and abuse they face as a result of coming out. A married man who realizes he's gay isn't suffering because he has a mental disorder - he's simply torn between supporting someone who he perhaps loves but isn't in love with, and acknowledging the fact that he's attracted to men.

I think it's logical to assume that there are cases where homosexual behavior is a result of a greater mental disturbance - but this isn't at all the case for many people - and I would even go so far as to say that the class of homosexuals who are pushing for gay marriage rights aren't those that fall under the abuse victim category, since it's quite obvious that their homosexual behavior extends far beyond sexual pleasure or fantasy. A man who is only interested in getting sex from other men on the side along with his heterosexual relationship is, I would say, more likely to be trying to deal with larger issues.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, what does it make you if you want to "hit" this?


or this?

Depends on what you want to "hit" it with? Personally, I would "hit" Miley Cyrus upside her head multiple times with a 2x4 just to shut up her whiney yapping and that of her annoying Dad and even more annoying fans.


As for Jessica Biel, well . . . let's say that now that she is over 21 I would "hit" that like the fist of an angry god smiting a wayward believer.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, you're certainly not, but the fact remains that there are a wealth of homosexuals struggling with their condition and don't want to be gay. You've associated with homosexuals right? Have they given you their stories about 8 years of counseling to deal with homosexuality and what to do about the wife and kids he had? These stories abound.

The facts are that there are isolated incidents of homosexuals who wish they weren't gay, but you simply saying that stories abound doesn't make it so. I know several mental professionals who deal with gay issues, and I'm confident I know a lot more gays than you do, and, once again, your "facts" are pure conjecture. You continually saying so, because that's what you want to believe, doesn't make it so.

[subego]

Sorry. I got a bit sidetracked here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sorry, I wasn't able to find any data on that (on the first few pages of my search). Can you?

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trangender, MSM Attempted Suicide Incidences / Risks - All Studies from 1970 to 2009

Just so you're warned, if there's some form of organization here, I haven't figured it out.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why? Just because the authors of that study don't think so? The authors will always downplay the importance of confounding factors which might invalidate all their work.

I should have more accurately phrased that "determine the difference in attitude between NZ and the US, whatever that may be."

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok so do they give the results of comparing the demographics of the various groups? Or do they just say they did the comparison and that is that?

They just say they did it.

No one's taking the bait anyway.

Sexual Orientation and Self-Harm in Men and Women -- Skegg et al. 160 (3): 541 -- Am J Psychiatry

Regardless of how full of it this particular study is, I think they bring up an interesting point which would apply to any study of this type. Namely, the idea that homosexuals are more willing to share private information of this type when queried about it. Sounds plausible.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Penguirl 

Alcoholism is genetic, it is considered a disorder because of it's negative impact on the alcoholic's life. If alcoholism had no negative impact on the individual or society, no one would care. Pedophilia obviously devastates the lives of it's victims, who are unable to render consent in the first place. Homosexuality is not a disorder, the only negative impact on a homosexuals life is external. It is society that manufactures a problem where there is none.

Well, since you've found the genetic link to alcoholism, how to treat it? 8% of the US population who struggles with alcohol abuse are waiting with baited breath for your conclusion. What you're likely referring to are studies that suggest augmented levels of impulsivity as predictors and while this angle can be used to encompass any range of behavioral patterns including pedophilia and homosexuality, it is not yet established science nor is there any cited degree of confidence in the predictors.

It should be noted that cigarrette smoking is not a disease according to DSM IV yet its negative impact or health implications on the individual and on society are unmistakable. It should also be noted that alcoholism is found to be 3 to 10 times as prevalent among men as among women. You can espouse the "genetic" factor, but you've got little to go with here I'm afraid. I'm not buying it.

We need to rethink the whole "disease" paradigm particularly with regards to alcoholism as this tact and the 12-step programs that peddle it are doing more damage than good statistically.

Fresh or not, it's an illogical argument. Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges while suggesting they're both genetic? Interesting.

I would love to see unbiased statistics to back this statement up.
Again, unbiased statistics please.

Could you define the bias you found in the reports cited by subego above or are you just saying this because you find the evidence distasteful?

Civil union is second class status.

Is it second class status if the term "marriage" were removed for all and any two who wish to "marry" were granted simply civil unions? I don't get the GI Bill and yet... I don't feel like a second class citizen. I am merely a class of citizen that is not eligible for the incentive. I have to buy a new hybrid, lean-burn, alternative fuel, and/or electric vehicle to be eligible for a Federal energy tax incentive. Does this make me a second class citizen because I've decided to continue driving my 2002 Jeep Wrangler, but keep my windows and doors shut when the air is on, shut my lights off when I leave the room? I don't get it.

Few straight couples would feel that they had equal rights if they could only have civil unions while the gay couples were married.

This is an odd argument. It follows then that "civil unions" would be the sought terminology for the bond and the subject of the homosexual plight for freedom. You'd then be arguing for why it's unfair that gays have to be "married" while heterosexual couples get to be acknowledged as a "civil union".

If a large segment of the homosexual community were opposed to heterosexual marriage, would you take issue with the notion that there are NO reasons to oppose straight marriage and that NONE of those reasons have merit and that ALL of those who oppose it are bigoted?

I don't know. Has the mental health of the heterosexual (by virtue of his/her sexual proclivity alone) ever come into question as being a mental disorder?

I'll agree to disagree with both you and Lt. Commander White.

okay

That's not an accurate comparison. What would be accurate would be if only heterosexual people were eligible to serve in the state legislature and homosexuals were not.

Sure it is. Gay people get married legally every day.

AARP is a private organization

True, strike that one from the argument. Apologies.

if government jobs were only open to heterosexuals then you would have a more accurate comparison.

It's an apt comparison in the sense that if it is eligible to one, it should be eligible to all. If drug addiction is genetic as-is homosexuality, then one should not be denied employment based on the drug addiction or in the least, their functionality should be determined. This is not the case. Both with genetic proclivity, one denied employment a priori while the other is granted employment. This is unfair and by your logic must also be bigoted. The Federal government offers enlisters a signing bonus, a GI Bill, among a wealth of other benefits as incentives to serve yet I do not get any of these. Why? Because I've made a choice not to join.

Aside from affirmative actions legislation in defense of gays and lesbians that does not exist for straights, there are also a wealth of minority grants that I am not eligible for. I'm eligible for different ones, but not under the same terms nor consideration; an incentive for a specific class to encourage specific behaviors found beneficial to the State for specific reasons. None of these are civil rights. They are incentives granted. They are as "unfair" as anything you'll cite in the "marriage" debate, but there's nothing to suggest a progressive society must always be "fair".

If marriage is not a civil right, are you saying it's a privilege? Like having a driver's license? So can we now not issue driver's licenses to homosexuals because they are somehow inherently not worthy of that privilege?

Driver's licenses are a prerequisite of having satisfied criteria to drive safely and are generally used as a form of identification. It is also unique in that you might have a driver's license and no vehicle nor desire to drive at all. They can be denied for any number of reasons including your legal status as a citizen of this country regardless of your ability to drive safely.

Stating that equal treatment regarding civil rights entitles everyone to Social Security, GI Bill, AARP membership and a government job is just silly. Those are not civil rights.

You're coming along quite nicely. Marriage is not a civil right. A life-long commitment to another is not something the government can grant nor take away.

SS is for those that paid into it

No, the workers are paying into it for any number of those meeting specific criteria to receive it regardless of whether or not they've paid in. This is why the system is bankrupting.

GI Bill is earned (not rewarded up front)

It is offered as an incentive up front and has become a valuable tool to recruiters for just this reason. There are other signing bonuses as well. These are all incentives to encourage a specific choice.

government jobs, like any other jobs, are (usually) given to those most qualified to perform them who go through the hiring process. Not civil rights.

... but I thought that if it were granted by the government, it's a civil right. There should be no qualifications necessary for government jobs.

Again, apples and oranges. The GI Bill is earned by military service. How is marriage earned? By being born straight? That is what is discriminatory about it! Straight people do not have to earn the right to marry, they have it inherently. To deny someone else the same right based on how they were born is discriminatory.

Again, there are a wealth of federal grants, incentives, affirmative actions, and even legal protections for minorities that don't exist for "majorities". Blacks do not earn "blackness", women do not earn "femininity" and yet these are all benefits afforded them by virtue of "how they were born". Still, you have absolutely no evidence that gays were "born that way".

Marriage is earned by virtue of entering into and maintaining marital status. Social Security is earned merely by turning a certain age. By your reasoning alcoholics and drug addicts are born that way too yet are denied employment, make choices as the result of their proclivity that often lose them the right to vote and a host of other rights up to and including gun ownership. Do we support their proclivity; their choice, then try to indicate why it is everyone else with a problem? No. We treat the illness, the proclivity.

The GI Bill and the other benefits offered to enlisters are an encouragement to enlist. If the State has made the benefit available to them, it must also make the benefit available to me or I've been relegated a second class citizen just as I'm a second class citizen for choosing to drive what I drive as opposed to getting an energy tax incentive for a hybrid. Many poor people cannot afford to drop $40k on a hybrid for example and as such, they will not be eligible for this special tax break.

Evidence please? I am less familiar with the homosexual research, but I can give you evidence that shows that gender identity is likely biological, at the very least there is no evidence to conclusively say that it is "the product of psychosocial/environmental factors." BBC NEWS | Health | Transsexual gene link identified Transsexualism [ Part I ] Transsexualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GRAPHIC: Sexx and Sexism, part I Intersexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I'm guessing since you used the APA as an appeal to authority, they may offer some insight;
Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster. "Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."

Hamer when asked if homosexuality is solely biological (1995);
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

What about intersex (formerly known as hermaphrodite) individuals? Were they born with mixed or indeterminate genitalia because of psychosocial or environmental factors? Homosexuality, intersex, and transgenderism have existed since the dawn of man. Homosexuality and intersex also exist in the animal kingdom (animals are likely not self aware enough to know if their sex and gender are mis-matched), are those also a result of psychosocial/environmental factors?

As you've conveniently blazed past the homosexual research in discussing something that's obviously more near and dear to your heart, gay men and lesbian women do not generally deny their gender. As you say; "I'm not familiar with homosexual research" on a topic of gay rights, I'll simply say I'm not familiar with the research you're citing. I can say you're attempting to link sexual orientation with known physical, biological phenomena.

How many homosexual or transsexual people have you talked to about their orientation or identity? I've talked to quite a few, and the overwhelmingly vast majority say they that at the very least they knew they were different at a an early age, most knew how they were different but didn't understand why. This is prior to any trauma and in "normal" homes. My own parents were a child psychologist and a social worker, but in spite of that I knew I was not a boy when I was about five. But I digress.

Again, this is an entirely different phenomena. Most gay men I know have absolutely no problem at all with identifying themselves as men nor lesbians as women and this in fact is the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians. There are also a wealth of differences between gays and lesbians that suggest lesbians are far more susceptible to social/environmental factors.

The fact remains that almost any data you'll find on homosexual research concludes a likely combination of many biological and psychosocial/environmental factors. It is far too early or "optimistic" to cite that homosexuality is wholly genetic, then go on to cite studies having to do with gender identity; a different phenomena.

Yes, because the "diagnosis" was what was causing harm and stigmatization, not the "condition" itself.

A list of the other classified disorders removed on this basis please?

And what does the scientific community say today? Is homosexuality still considered a disorder? Not by the majority of the scientific community. Knowledge is evolutionary, there was a time that we thought asbestos was safe. Now we know better.

The scientific community says today, overwhelmingly; that homosexuality is likely a combination of genetic factors as yet unidentified with any degree of certainty or predictability, and known psychosocial/environmental factors.

See links above. If you have conclusive proof that homosexuality is a mental illness and not a result of biology, I'd sure like to see it.

Of course anyone with introspect upon reading your links would also conclude that none of them established that homosexuality is wholly genetic, with no psychosocial/environmental factors. Why use one criteria for a contrarian view and another entirely for an affirmative view???

Yes, some do, however I do not support that position. Gay is not the new black, it is it's own issue.

An agreement. Eureka.

Apples and oranges, again. Homosexuality, between consenting adults, harms no one. The same cannot be said of alcoholism or pedophillia.

Familial desire to marry is hurting no one either. How is polygamy harmful to consenting adults? The answer is; It is apparent that this is not about "harm". It is about incentivizing a specific condition. Incentivizing specific conditions is a foundation upon which a great many Federal programs are founded. There is nothing to suggest that "fairness" is always the prerequisite of "progress".

I meant in their personal relationships. Who someone dates or marries, with regard to race, religion, sex, orientation, identity, etc… is not relevant to anyone else. Should we make interracial marriage illegal again?

Wait a minute, you just said that race is an entirely different issue, but you're readily willing to invoke it in an argument? I might add, another argument that's already been addressed. The struggle for interracial marriage was at a time of struggle for blacks in general. While their genetic composition is unmistakable, a genetic component to human sexuality is not. This is why a genetic link to homosexuality is so important to advocates of gay marriage. They will stop at nothing including the marginalization of the plight of African-Americans in this country.

Your tax benefit, ability to serve in the military, lack of access to the GI Bill, and inability to be a Catholic priest all have nothing to do with how you were born.

Again, you're using your personal opinion on the matter as an argument regardless of how weak your initial case is. Again, the psychosocial/environmental factors for homosexuality enjoy exponentially more scientific foundation than a genetic link or the "born that way" supposition. Was Anne Heche born gay, then hetero, then gay again? Is she merely a conflicted bisexual?

getting a job, serving in the military is based on qualifications.

Sure, qualifications that are often based on how you were born. For example, PT testing in the military and the subsequent standards vary between men and women. There are a wealth of Federal grants, benefits, incentives, legal protections, and affirmative actions (that include gays by the way) that are not available to straights or "majorities" with almost all based on "how you were born."

We don't qualify heterosexual couples for marriage between consenting adults, and we should not qualify homosexual couples for marriage between consenting adults either.

Sure we do. First cousins cannot marry, brother and sister cannot marry, mother and adult offspring cannot marry, and in fact there are even cases where those with an STD cannot marry like in the State of Oklahoma for example.

I feel that stale inaccuracies are worth discussing, I'm sorry if you would rather let them go unchallenged. And thank you, I'm enjoying it immensely.

My problem was not necessarily that you wanted to rehash arguments that had already been made. It was you claiming my arguments were repetitive while repeating the same arguments that had already been made and addressed.

I appreciate that we might have differing views of what is deemed "accurate", but I might suggest bolstering your opinion by staying on topic. For example, gender identity disorder and sexual orientation or preference are two entirely different phenomena. As are race, sexual identity, and sexual preference.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Trouble is, this doesn't apply to everyone.

There are probably plenty of people who identify as homosexual or bisexual who, upon further investigation, have suffered some kind of major childhood trauma - particularly sexual abuse. It's entirely logical to hypothesize that for some in this demographic, homosexual behavior is a manifestation of a greater psychological problem or disturbance.

But this isn't universally or objectively applicable. In actual mental disorders and diseases such as schizophrenia, clinical depression, and bipolar disorder, the symptoms of the disorder objectively manifest themselves in ways that are damaging to the sufferer. A person who suffers from depression due to environmental factors suffers negative effects, as does a person suffering from depression due to a genetic proclivity toward the disorder.

The negative effects of homosexuality, however, are entirely a social construct. The suicide rate among homosexual teenagers is high not because homosexuality is a mental disorder, but because of the terribly bullying and abuse they face as a result of coming out.

I'll stop you here. While it is undeniable that homosexuals endure a wealth of hostile and unacceptable, reprehensible treatment by society, there is nothing that suggests a similar anomaly among those of other challenges nor does it jive when homosexual suicide rates are compared between regions of higher and lower tolerance for homosexuality. This is a popular talking point because it enjoys a lot of logic quite frankly, but not a lot of data. Studies suggest the majority of them are committed after a relationship breakup.

A married man who realizes he's gay isn't suffering because he has a mental disorder - he's simply torn between supporting someone who he perhaps loves but isn't in love with, and acknowledging the fact that he's attracted to men.

I think it's logical to assume that there are cases where homosexual behavior is a result of a greater mental disturbance - but this isn't at all the case for many people - and I would even go so far as to say that the class of homosexuals who are pushing for gay marriage rights aren't those that fall under the abuse victim category, since it's quite obvious that their homosexual behavior extends far beyond sexual pleasure or fantasy. A man who is only interested in getting sex from other men on the side along with his heterosexual relationship is, I would say, more likely to be trying to deal with larger issues.

Again, the mistake here IMO is not that we're talking about rights for "harmless" people or conditions, but incentives for preferred conditions. A home with a loving mother and father provides a healthy combination of male and female perspectives, often times evidenced by such subtle behaviors as how a child is actually held by the two. This condition and the differences between male and female child-rearing are well-documented. This is regarded as a condition that the State generally wants to incentivize. This is apparent not only in the denial of gays to marry, but a host of other conditions not eligible for the State benefit. It is also not inconsistent with the wealth of other services, benefits, incentives, grants, and legal protections afforded others as members of a specific class or group of individuals.

[OldManMac]

Make that 6 down and 44 to go! WOOT!!! They must have found something to "incentivize."

Gay Marriage Bill Signed Into Law In NH - Family News Story - WDIV Detroit

[OldManMac]

Bees do it,
Birds do it,
Even Penguins at the zoo do it,
Let's do it,
Let's fall in love.


BBC NEWS | Europe | 'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick