Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran

[Gunny]

Straight up bull, Gunny. Any claim such as it being a choice or not requires research and evidence.

However, the APA feels differently: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Try again. YOU made the initial claim you were "born that way." You were asked for evidence. So far, you've tap-danced a little and now are attempting to reverse the onus of proof, but provided nothing to support your claim.

As far as my claim that homosexuality is behavioral, that is easily proven. You do guys, don't you? That requires a conscious, physical act. End of story for you, my friend.

 

[nt250]

I have met those who claim to be homosexual. I have not once met one that was born that way and could prove it simply because evidence does not exist to prove it.

When you meet one, you'll have all the evidence you need.

You can tell just by looking at them.

And that's not being a bigot.

 

[Kagom]

Try again. YOU made the initial claim you were "born that way." You were asked for evidence. So far, you've tap-danced a little and now are attempting to reverse the onus of proof, but provided nothing to support your claim.

As far as my claim that homosexuality is behavioral, that is easily proven. You do guys, don't you? That requires a conscious, physical act. End of story for you, my friend.

I gave a link from the APA stating their stance on this. I've given evidence in the past, do you want me to go dig through old topics and search anew? I will if it'll please you.

It's behavioral: yes. But that doesn't necessitate it isn't something ingrained into our minds. Did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

[Kagom]

When you meet one, you'll have all the evidence you need.

You can tell just by looking at them.

And that's not being a bigot.

I take it you hold a similar view to my beliefs on Social and Natural Homosexuality, then?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Straight up bull, Gunny. Any claim such as it being a choice or not requires research and evidence.

However, the APA feels differently: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

DUDE, do you actually read what you post/link?

when asked if sexual orientation can be changed by therapy, the APA adamently stated NO! Then they followed up with a paragraph that says they "dont have enough proof if the therapy some have received and claim to have changed them, actually works or not"

How the hell can they make a claim when the evidence is non conclusive, or, at best, shows there can be a change.????

"Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention"



As for the "choice" issue:

"Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings"

so, apparently they at least think there is partly a choice in the matter, and have no proof one way or the other (although they have to claim the changed patients are not telling the truth) if it can be changed.

 

[Gunny]

I gave a link from the APA stating their stance on this. I've given evidence in the past, do you want me to go dig through old topics and search anew? I will if it'll please you.

It's behavioral: yes. But that doesn't necessitate it isn't something ingrained into our minds. Did you choose to be heterosexual?

One doesn't have to choose to be normal. That's another poor attempt at deflection.

You can go dig through topics all day if you think it'll do you any good. When you get finished throwing out the opinions and can provide medical/scientific evidence, feel free to post it.

 

[nt250]

Bisexuals are a bane to heterosexuals and homosexuals. They're not that well-liked because many view them as those who want their cake and be able to eat it too.

And I had negative relationship experiences with a bisexual guy.

Bisexuals don't bother hetrosexuals that much. I mean in a political, figurative sense, of course. But just the notion of bisexuality really drives gay rights activists nuts. It totally screws up their arguments because being bisexual introduces choice into the equation of gays rights legislation.

Gay rights laws are nothing more than legislating the reaction to a personal habit. Gays are the only group in the history of the world to demand, and get, laws passed that tell others how they're supposed to react to their personal behavior.

Sexual behavior at that.

The argument that being gay is akin to race, and that homosexuals are entitled to the same protections as other civil rights laws, only works if choice plays no part in it. Bisexuality totally screws up that argument.

I've met two born homosexual men. I have never met a bisexual man. I've met one born Lesbian. I have met numerous bisexual women. Being a Lesbian to some women is no different than being a vegetarian or an animal rights activist. It's a cause.

 

[Kagom]

DUDE, do you actually read what you post/link?

when asked if sexual orientation can be changed by therapy, the APA adamently stated NO! Then they followed up with a paragraph that says they "dont have enough proof if the therapy some have received and claim to have changed them, actually works or not"

How the hell can they make a claim when the evidence is non conclusive, or, at best, shows there can be a change.????

"Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention"

As for the "choice" issue:

"Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings"

so, apparently they at least think there is partly a choice in the matter, and have no proof one way or the other (although they have to claim the changed patients are not telling the truth) if it can be changed.

I've gone through it before. I only gave it to show a particular psychological organization's stance.

But perhaps you'd like to exactly show me where it says such a thing? I'm not seeing it there at all. Maybe it's because I'm blind or just missing it, but it wouldn't hurt to show me, would it?

As for the second quote you've given, what's being said is completely addressed at the conversion therapy centers themselves. They're saying these organizations don't keep a close watch on its research or test results.

There is some choice involved whether you actually choose to engage IN sex with a person of the same gender. As for the attraction side of it, it's not something someone just turns off and on, unless they're bisexual (I'm trying to be funny. LAUGH DAMMIT!).

 

[Kagom]

One doesn't have to choose to be normal. That's another poor attempt at deflection.

You can go dig through topics all day if you think it'll do you any good. When you get finished throwing out the opinions and can provide medical/scientific evidence, feel free to post it.

I'd like to use this student written paper: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/kgiamanco.html and use the student's citations: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/gaybrain.html
http://www.genuinejeff.com/researchdata.htm (this one is admittedly biased)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2404109.stm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_6_33/ai_66278285
just to cite a few

And so there's a double-standard to heterosexuality? Because it's the norm, anything else is chosen? Right handedness is the norm, so, going on your point made, left handedness is something chosen.

 

[Kagom]

Bisexuals don't bother hetrosexuals that much. I mean in a political, figurative sense, of course. But just the notion of bisexuality really drives gay rights activists nuts. It totally screws up their arguments because being bisexual introduces choice into the equation of gays rights legislation.

Gay rights laws are nothing more than legislating the reaction to a personal habit. Gays are the only group in the history of the world to demand, and get, laws passed that tell others how they're supposed to react to their personal behavior.

Sexual behavior at that.

The argument that being gay is akin to race, and that homosexuals are entitled to the same protections as other civil rights laws, only works if choice plays no part in it. Bisexuality totally screws up that argument.

I've met two born homosexual men. I have never met a bisexual man. I've met one born Lesbian. I have met numerous bisexual women. Being a Lesbian to some women is no different than being a vegetarian or an animal rights activist. It's a cause.

It does hurt the gay rights movement because bisexuals seem to be very indecisive on things. But that's my opinion.

And? All gays want is fair treatement and the right to marry their partners and get the same benefits and rights as heterosexuals do. Don't even have to call it marriage, call it Happy Fulfillment Time for all I care.

Yes it does screw up the argument because bisexuals are indecisive!

Yeah, I've met people who have chosen to be gay and I shake my head at them because they don't understand that it makes everything look like a lie when it isn't.

 

[Gunny]

I'd like to use this student written paper: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/kgiamanco.html and use the student's citations: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/gaybrain.html
http://www.genuinejeff.com/researchdata.htm (this one is admittedly biased)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2404109.stm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_6_33/ai_66278285
just to cite a few

And so there's a double-standard to heterosexuality? Because it's the norm, anything else is chosen? Right handedness is the norm, so, going on your point made, left handedness is something chosen.

Like I said, get rid of the opinions. It is fact there is no scientific and/or medical evidence that supports the claim that homosexuality is hereditary. If there was, we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?

And no, there is no double-standard. Your argument is dishonest, simple as that. Being right or left handed is a proven hereditary trait, and neither is considered abnormal by the medical community.

Heterosexuality is biologically normal and correct. It's that simple, and quite frankly, I find your grasping for straws to be getting more desperate each time you try to twist one up.

 

[Reneer]

The way they are taking over Europe is by not adapting to the cultural ways of the countries they move to. They insist on maintaining their culture in its entirty.
It isnt like that in America.

As you stated, in france there are millions of unemployed muslims, so they simply have the opportunity to use violence to try and take over. They dont have that opportunity in AMerica.

The way the muslims in America are helping to overthrow us, is the FACT that they send tons of money back home, some to terrorists, and let the terrorists carry on secretly here in there mosques.

... you may be correct that Muslims in America send money back to their families, but everything else you say is complete and utter conjecture. If you provide some news articles that support your conjecture you may have a better case.

RENEER,,,,you seem confused. How can you claim, "it maybe that something happened while in utero that caused me to be gay" (not exact quote, but close enough for this purpose.)

THen you claim its a FACT that you were born homosexual. How can you know its a fact if you arent even sure what causes it?

and that study about the twins is hysterical. They compare them to adopted kids?? Gimme a break. Adoptive kids usually dont spend the first few years of their lives with their adoptive parents, and it could very well be, that during that time the homosexuality becomes ingrained. WE DONT KNOW, hence the study is useless

Now, if you want a REAL study, STUDY THIS:


AIDS KILLS. HOMOSEXUALS in America have an extraordinary high rate of AIDS. END OF STUDY>

First of all, if you are going to quote me, please actually quote me, alright? I have made no statement on this forum regarding my sexuality (at least that I can recall,) and I would appreciate it if you would retract your statements unless you can actually quote where I wrote about my sexuality.

Moving on...

Do you have any idea how that study was done? Did you actually bother to do some research and go and find the actual study? Or did you simply see 'adopted' and immediately come to your all-knowing conclusion that the study had to be completely and utterly baseless because you thought it to be so?

And I don't see a peep out of you in regards to the other studies. Now why is that?

 

[nt250]

I take it you hold a similar view to my beliefs on Social and Natural Homosexuality, then?

What are they?

 

[Kagom]

Like I said, get rid of the opinions. It is fact there is no scientific and/or medical evidence that supports the claim that homosexuality is hereditary. If there was, we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?

And no, there is no double-standard. Your argument is dishonest, simple as that. Being right or left handed is a proven hereditary trait, and neither is considered abnormal by the medical community.

Heterosexuality is biologically normal and correct. It's that simple, and quite frankly, I find your grasping for straws to be getting more desperate each time you try to twist one up.

Most of that isn't all opinions. A belief that choosing homosexuality is an opinion and doesn't have evidence, as I've stated earlier. I think we would still be having this argument because then people'd be saying that the evidence is flawed, etc.

Yes there is a double-standard. You're claiming one sexual orientation is an inborn thing as opposed to two other ones because they don't go with what is normal.

The left hand/right hand argument IS very dishonest. I admit that. BUt it is intentionally so.

 

[Kagom]

What are they?

They're simplistic in nature. I believe a majority of gays are born that way and they follow the order of Natural Homosexuality. The rest were influenced in some way during their childhood or they simply chose it for reasons we don't know (or could guess) and are Social Homosexuals and are the ones who are rather full of it.

 

[Gunny]

Most of that isn't all opinions. A belief that choosing homosexuality is an opinion and doesn't have evidence, as I've stated earlier. I think we would still be having this argument because then people'd be saying that the evidence is flawed, etc.

It would depend on the source of the evidence, yes. Don't most things?
Yes there is a double-standard. You're claiming one sexual orientation is an inborn thing as opposed to two other ones because they don't go with what is normal.

Wrong. Heterosexuality is not an orientation, it is a biological function of nature. You're REALLY grasping now.

The left hand/right hand argument IS very dishonest. I admit that. BUt it is intentionally so.

Why? You think most people cannot differentiate between factual herditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance? I see no point in purposefully posting a dishonest argument. It only makes YOU look bad.

 

[Kagom]

Why? You think most people cannot differentiate between factual herditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance? I see no point in purposefully posting a dishonest argument. It only makes YOU look bad.

Grasping? Hardly. Heterosexuality is, by definition, a sexual orientation. I go by that. If that's a problem for you, then just say so.

I know most people can differentiate between factual hereditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance. In my point of view, your beliefs on homosexuality and heterosexuality are along the same line as the right hand/left hand argument.

 

[nt250]

It does hurt the gay rights movement because bisexuals seem to be very indecisive on things. But that's my opinion.

And? All gays want is fair treatement and the right to marry their partners and get the same benefits and rights as heterosexuals do. Don't even have to call it marriage, call it Happy Fulfillment Time for all I care.

Yes it does screw up the argument because bisexuals are indecisive!

Yeah, I've met people who have chosen to be gay and I shake my head at them because they don't understand that it makes everything look like a lie when it isn't.

You're 18 years old. You're too young to have any perspective on the gay rights movement. You're also too young to be having sex of any kind, fer cryin' out loud!

 

[Kagom]

You're 18 years old. You're too young to have any perspective on the gay rights movement. You're also too young to be having sex of any kind, fer cryin' out loud!

I disagree with you on those points, but that's a personal opinion.

Look, I've been sexually active since I was 17. I agree at 17 I wasn't truly ready for sex, but that's too sad, too late. I'm almost 19 now and I'm more mature sexually and mentally than I was at 17. I don't feel I'm too young, but again, that's my personal opinion.

 

[nt250]

I disagree with you on those points, but that's a personal opinion.

Look, I've been sexually active since I was 17. I agree at 17 I wasn't truly ready for sex, but that's too sad, too late. I'm almost 19 now and I'm more mature sexually and mentally than I was at 17. I don't feel I'm too young, but again, that's my personal opinion.

Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer this, but how many men have you had sex with so far?