Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many MH diagnoses rely on anecdotal, behavioral accounts, if not most.
Do you consider a controlled study of patients in a medical institution based on their experiences to be comparable to some anonymous person on the internet claiming, "My friend turned straight!"?
All evidence for this is anecdotal, unless you've invented a mind-reading device.
That's nice, if you're inclination is to accept that everyone is a victim of their genetics and their biology. I prefer not to assume that an entire segment of the population are victims. Neither do my gay friends, who think that attitude is one of the problems with the movement.
When did I say people are victim to their biology? If society didn't view homosexuality as a disease that needed to be "cured" people wouldn't spend their lives trying to change something that isn't going to change.
Quote:
I'm not confused. I know you're advocating a position of victimization in order to generate sympathy. I, on the other hand, am advocating a position of the choice to live a certain lifestyle, and the right to do so.
Gays certainly have a choice to marry a member of the opposite sex, have children, have a miserable life, and end up cheating on their spouse. Happens every day, especially among Conservative, Family values closet cases.
Doesn't mean they're changing their orientation or their biology, merely their relationships. I personally find it immoral to subject your spouse to that, but that's me.
Gays certainly have a choice to marry a member of the opposite sex, have children, have a miserable life, and end up cheating on their spouse. Happens every day, especially among Conservative, Family values closet cases.
Maybe so, but they DO have that right, and you may not consider it to be them changing their orientation but that's too bad, you need to respect how THEY have chosen to live their lives if you expect anyone else to respect how YOU have chosen to live YOURS.
And yet what CAUSES those chemical reactions are different for everyone. And yes, some of them are voluntary, some are physical only, some are based solely on knowing a person and have nothing at all to do with physicality, including gender. Glad you finally get it.
You're not making much sense. If it's a chemical reaction in the brain, it's not happening voluntarily. Attractions are not controlled by our will or desire. I can't force myself to find somebody attractive that is not attractive to me. There are only certain human beings that I can look at and feel an attraction, arousal, feelings, etc. Those who do not fit my attractions will gain no automatic response from me.
Every time I look at somebody, I either view something about them as attractive, or I don't. I make no conscious choice in the matter, and have never been able to willfully change those attractions.
That's how biological attraction works. It's not voluntary, it's involuntary.
I oppose most divorces, but that is not the subject of this thread.
"Marriage is still marriage, just because two women or two men marry does not change the word or the definition."
Two men or two women marrying does not change the definition of marriage.
This is true, but the definition of marriage must be changed in order for them to marry.
No it does not need to change, what needs to change is laws banning us marriage. That is all, it does not change your marriage one bit for two men or two women to marry. It is still marriage.
Maybe so, but they DO have that right, and you may not consider it to be them changing their orientation but that's too bad, you need to respect how THEY have chosen to live their lives if you expect anyone else to respect how YOU have chosen to live YOURS.
Here endeth the lesson.
When have I ever claimed they don't have a right to do that? Self-loathing gays are quite common, and they have every right to be that way if they want.
We're not discussing behavior or how one lives their lives. We're discussing their innate, brain structure that controls who they are attracted to. Behavior can change, brain structure related to attractions does not.
And with that straight falsehood, your entire argument falls apart. You need to stop pretending that people don't have a choice and simply accept that people must accept your life choices whatever they may be.
That is not a falsehood, it is true. I cannot change who I am attracted to. I could forcibly make my self date a woman, but that does not make me attracted to her. I could not have sex with a woman, for that takes attraction and desire. I do not have that towards women. Most gay men, who recognize that they are gay, do not change, do not have an attraction to women or the desire. Have you ever desired a relationship with the same sex? Are you remotely attracted to the same sex? If not, then you are straight and never had the chance to be gay. Can any straight man say that he could just turn off his attraction to women and start feeling attracted to men, same with women..
Maybe so, but they DO have that right, and you may not consider it to be them changing their orientation but that's too bad, you need to respect how THEY have chosen to live their lives if you expect anyone else to respect how YOU have chosen to live YOURS.
Here endeth the lesson.
You are not the endall. You are straight and biased, you do not know what it means or feels to be homosexual and I do not know what it feels to be heterosexual, but I did not choose to be homosexual. My brother had the chance to not hurt two women, but he married at 17 to create a straight mask, that first marriage ended in divorce and a child. His second marriage was a disaster, he married a woman again, but this time he cheated on her constantly, with men, she found out and was very hurt and divorced him. He does not blame himself, he blames the church for making him a sinner and for hating his ownself. He still hates himself, hates the church, yet claims to be straight, still. His life is misirable, his exes tolerate him and his daughter no longer is in his life. He also hates Jewish people and his claim is that they will not be allowed in heaven because they do not believe in the correct god, his christian god. He had two bogus marriages, yet had the nerve to call me a sinner for marrying my partner of 34 years. At least I have not hurt anyone, I came out early and refused to hurt a woman by lying to her to placate the religious society. I have chosen to be honest with my life, honest with my family and honest to a god if there is one.
Marriage has never been a religious institution in this country. It didn't have church involvement until 1200 years after Christianity began, and Protestants adamantly opposed marriage on religious grounds for centuries, leading to all of Western Europe forcing marriage to be secular.
Damn, I thought marriage ceremonies, about 95% of the time, were performed by some sort of clergy. And I was under the impression that we are no longer living in the middle ages.
As I already stated, the state should not be involved. It's simply another form of state revenue generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
For one, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. Two, dead bodies can't consent, and three, I don't see constant notices in the news of necrophiliacs being demonized or discriminated against. Not a valid comparison.
Yes it is. A dead body cannot have a preference, since it is dead. A necrophiliac is alive, not dead. A necrophiliac has or fantasizes sex with a dead person. They prefer the dead. Sounds like they are oriented to the dead to me.
Here's a dictionary definition for you: Orientation - a predisposition in favor of something.
A necrophiliac has a predisposition in favor of having intercourse with a corpse, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
You do realize that homophobia encompasses more than its greek etymology right? Homophobia includes aversion to, discrimination of, or hatred towards homosexuals or homosexuality. And fear often plays a part. Anyone who claims gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society or gays will corrupt their children and turn them gay is expressing irrational fear. Phobia is quite applicable.
Then you need to improve your terminology and submit it to Merriam-Webster. You seem to be using the term "homophobic" as if it only meant a distaste for homosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
You don't know the meaning of Sexual orientation. Quit your childish ranting. Everything you're describing are known as paraphilias. They have a pathology associated with them. They are not "orientations" .
Yes they are. And you are discriminating against them by discounting them. Your association with "pathology" is a phobic reaction. Wasn't it once assumed that homosexuality had some pathology associated with it? But then we came out of the dark ages on that one, right? It appears that you are still living in the dark ages. You need to be more accepting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
You're comparing two men holding hands in public to indecent exposure?
And if you saw a man holding the hand of a love doll and dragging her down the street, tell me you would not have some negative thoughts running through your accepting brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
I have every right to call you homophobic. Your attitude is entirely childish and irrational, and manifests itself as some sort of mental disease.
By your own definition, you do not. You stated that the word homophobic encompassed far more than distaste. I do not feel that homosexuality will lead to the downfall of anything. I said nothing about children. I said homosexuality simply turns me off. Do you have anything that sexually turns you off? Is that then a "phobia"? The word phobia has certain connotations and you damn well know it. You've simply come up with another hate word, just as you accepting, open-minded types always do.
Your attitude is one of conformity and the lack of willingness to allow any diversity of thought at all... unless that though is in agreement with you. That sounds far more childish to me. And as always... your GRAND finale, as it always is with you open-minded thinker types, is to insult others. That's all you have. Insults. Other than that, only an crisping, brittle, empty shell blows across the desolate, parched desert landscapes within.
I don't agree with your words. I find your rant to be quite flawed in fact.
So you are just an intellectual mercenary here. You make others' arguments without you ever having agreed with them. That's cool. Sounds intriguing, actually.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
