Homosexuality= Gender Identity Disorder?

[Zimbochick]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Odd username

snuff sex - Google Search=

It's even more bizarre than that:

Snuffster

Probably just another re-incarnation.

[Le Lune]

Um...whoever published that book needs to be shot. Seriously.

Homosexuality =/= Gender Identity Disorder

Reason? Because gay men identify as male. Gay females identify as female.

Those who fall under Gender Identity Disorder are those who are questioning their own sex.

[formercalifornian]

In all seriousness, I'm struggling to figure out why a heterosexual person would spend any time at all contemplating homosexual behavior. I spend my time trying to figure out what turns on my spouse, not conjuring images of sexual behaviors which hold no appeal for me.

[Le Lune]

Originally Posted by formercalifornian

In all seriousness, I'm struggling to figure out why a heterosexual person would spend any time at all contemplating homosexual behavior. I spend my time trying to figure out what turns on my spouse, not conjuring images of sexual behaviors which hold no appeal for me. So, why exactly is somebody who claims to be firmly heterosexual commenting about the following?

I was in class learning about homosexuality and found a study that showed that aggressively homophobic men were more likely to be aroused watching gay prawns than accepting straight menPrawns is an innuendo.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

Let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Is gender identity disorder a cause of homosexuality?

MODERATOR SPEAKING: Please stay on topic.

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

You conveniently left out that I said I posted those links to studies for desli as he requested that I cite some studies. How very disengenuous of you.

You also seem to have completely changed your tune about backing up claims by citing academic sources since you posted this a month ago. How convenient for you.

I realize you have grown accustomed to a life of selective reasoning, but dont forget to jog your selective memory and post the link to my quote in THAT SAME THREAD that stated this:

Thats about as far as Im going to go with these references -- For one, Ive never been a big internet reference link person on these threads...its just not something I put tons of stock into...but as you asked, I figured I'd oblige. But also, you've driven your fingers into your ears and no amount of scientific research, academia nor proof will advance the substance of our discussion any further.

BEFORE I even made the statement that you quoted. Hmm, oddly enough that sounds remarkably similar to the tune that Im singing in this thread...Meaning that I have never engaged in link wars, and initially didnt want sources from that person either, but because a person requested them, I compromised my own practices. And as I predicted in that thread, presenting links didnt prove nor disprove anyone's opinion either way. How convenient of you to overlook this precursory statement..and how very unobservant of you..as expected..

//www.city-data.com/forum/13710417-post407.html

Originally Posted by Jaymax

As for the rest of your claims - The one and only "research" link you have posted in recent times on this topic was:
APA revises 'gay gene' theory (OneNewsNow.com)
A religious site quoting
Peter La Barbera from Americans for Truth about Homosexuality - which is in itself, a religious website which quotes extensively from the "junk science" of the long discredited "Dr" Paul Cameron (the source of much of the references to so called "studies" on religiously biased websites.)

LOL! Enough said.

Clearly your sources are far superior (and much more colorful) to mine.

Stated in classic Jaymax philosophical rhetoric: Quantity over quality...lol...Clearly my sources always have been superior, which is how I know my research is well founded while yours is mostly a hodgepodge of hogwash and psychobabble...If I didnt believe the sources for my research were superior, I would actually believe the information in those chicken sh*t links that you try to sell as independent research instead..lol......and just think..those are just the one's you couldnt dispute **Oh my bad, labeling a source "Junk Science" was supposed to pass for debunking a source**...."OH NOOOOO!!!...NOT RELIGION!!!...INFORMATION POSTED ON A RELIGIOUS SITE!!!...THATS LIKE KRYPTONITE...AAARRRGGHHHH!!" lol...GASP!..you mean that information on the internet may actually have a bias!!...NOO!...what an astute and profound acknowledgment from you! <or not>...but wait a minute - that must mean that even those links of yours, which are also found on various websites with political agendas, have a bias of their own!...so you mean to tell me that internet content comes from sources with a particular bias, kinda like how I stated two pages ago?...well now, who'da thunk it?..

now imagine how much more befuddled you would be if I actually tried to dispute your opinion with more sources!..lol I can admit when Im wrong, and always do...but fortunately my research has informed me that I am right in this instance that people arent born with predetermined sexuality..

But clearly your ability to google is FAARRR superior to mine..lmao