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.
Pathetic attempt at logic. Here--go educate yourself:
"No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding." Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality"
The definition is simple. Normal is a definition of standard occurrence, a commonality. Abnormal is not so, uncommon, an irregularity.
For instance, if 99 out of a 100 are the same, they are common, normal, consistent. If 1 out of the hundred is different, then it is abnormal, uncommon, irregular, deviant of the norm.
What is the number of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals? The facts speak for themselves. Homosexuality is abnormal, uncommon, irregular, etc...
It has no good or bad implications in itself. It is simply a statement of fact.
Relativistic positions are for opinions on pie and cake, they are not applicable to issues of fact. That is, your definition has no meaning outside of your subjective opinion, we use the actual definition, not yours.
It has no good or bad implications in itself. It is simply a statement of fact.
Oh, so you would have us believe that you are merely interested in statistical deviation and that you have divorced the discussion of homosexuality from a socio-political discourse that is almost singularly preoccupied with the moral implications of homosexuality in society? Oh, ok. Sure.
It is normal in that nature repeats itself. Nature didn't create gays one time throughout the history of humans. It continued to create them. And what is normal isn't always wonderful. Morbid obesity is a major norm of today. I don't know about you. But I don't want to look like Jabba The Hut.
Do most people have two nipples? What about a person with a third nipple? I have a third nipple. That makes me abnormal, because most people don't.
You're twisting the meaning of the word "normal" as it is used from a scientific standpoint. Left-handedness is considered normal by the medical community, as is homosexuality. It's not 1950 anymore.
I guess you don't know much about science or education. There are two sexes for a reason. Male and female. Same sex works against the science of the continuation of life. An abnormality, a devience. Maybe a biology class would be helpful? You might also check into what the an*s is for.
Perhaps you should get on the case of the straight sex websites where girls having anal sex is plastered everywhere. Oh I forgot.....it's alright when straight couples do it. Ever have oral sex? That's a big no-no too but accepted when it comes to straight people. Perhaps we need to cure straight people of their deviancy as sex should only be for procreation.
That is true. Apparently there is a large straight male audience that approves of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.J. MacReady
Perhaps you should get on the case of the straight sex websites where girls having anal sex is plastered everywhere. Oh I forgot.....it's alright when straight couples do it. Ever have oral sex? That's a big no-no too but accepted when it comes to straight people. Perhaps we need to cure straight people of their deviancy as sex should only be for procreation.
I know twenty years ago what I said WAS espoused as explanation for homosexuality by cognitive behaviorists. I don't know which group of psychologists holds the majority view today, if any.
I would not use the term "cured" since it has strong negative connotations. I would use a term like "changed" or "retrained" since it is a learned condition. Like all psychological learned behaviors it would be very hard to change but change is possible. It might never feel as 'right' to the homosexual as to someone who successfully mastered the identity vs. role confusion stage correctly the first time around though.
I find it hard to believe that you're really a psychologist. If you are, you're certainly out of step with the consensus on whether or not sexual orientation can be changed.
Quote:
In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.
No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.
Oh, so you would have us believe that you are merely interested in statistical deviation and that you have divorced the discussion of homosexuality from a socio-political discourse that is almost singularly preoccupied with the moral implications of homosexuality in society? Oh, ok. Sure.
I don't care what you "believe" as it is irrelevant. What you can show to be evident is of merit, everything else is blowing hot air. I stated a fact, where we go from there is dealt with as it occurs by statements of position.
Try not to create the positions of those you discuss with and you won't be arguing straw mans to their positions.
I don't care what you "believe" as it is irrelevant. What you can show to be evident is of merit, everything else is blowing hot air. I stated a fact, where we go from there is dealt with as it occurs by statements of position.
Try not to create the positions of those you discuss with and you won't be arguing straw mans to their positions.
*L* You obviously don't understand what a straw man argument is. And statements of positions are based in beliefs, by the way.
Perhaps you should be discussing the statistical variation of human sexuality in a statistics forum. It's certainly strange that you'd be participating in a politics forum if you are only interested in quantifiable facts.
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.
