Soy is making kids 'gay'

[Yurt]

Soy what!

Drank soy most of my life, milk a few times, now mostly soy, no plugged nose problems.

Eat ice cream, no worries, but milk, seems to always get me. Soy, I use soy milk.

 

[glockmail]

That is only true if homosexuality and alcoholism are mental disorders that a person chooses to have, and since they are not, your post is false. Next thing ya know, you'll be arguing that a mentally retarded person is choosing to be stupid. After all, all they have to do is choose to be smart, right?

The retard has no choice but to be stupid. The homo and the alky can choose to be straight and sober.

 

[90K]

The retard has no choice but to be stupid. The homo and the alky can choose to be straight and sober.

is there a 12 step program for homosexuals? I wonder how much denial would be in those meetings?
Step one:
We admitted that we were powerless over or dependencies and that our life had become unmanageable

 

[glockmail]

is there a 12 step program for homosexuals? I wonder how much denial would be in those meetings?
Step one:
We admitted that we were powerless over or dependencies and that our life had become unmanageable

Or: we admit that were just a bunch of real horney guys with small dicks that can't find women as perverted as we are.

 

[90K]

Or: we admit that were just a bunch of real horney guys with small dicks that can't find women as perverted as we are.

 

[MissileMan]

The retard has no choice but to be stupid. The homo and the alky can choose to be straight and sober.

You have yet to show that homosexuality and alcoholism are disorders that a person chooses to have. For one thing, even after getting sober and not drinking an alcoholic is still an alcoholic.

 

[90K]

For one thing, even after getting sober and not drinking an alcoholic is still an alcoholic.

That is unless that never unplug the jug then they are in recovery or recovered.
1 Nov 1989.

 

[Kagom]

I have a much better plan .... you can go search the threads yourself. It isn't as if I have some special access to them you don't.

I hardly expected you to agree that you got shot down, but in a smoking spiral you have gone each and every time. You're wrong, simple as that. But for you to agree with me, you'd have to quit being gay. So you'll agree with you, and your lame, baseless arguments.

You can make the claims you want. You have not shot me down.

 

[Kagom]

Or: we admit that were just a bunch of real horney guys with small dicks that can't find women as perverted as we are.

Now I'm the one tempted to say something. But I'll be good :x

 

[Gunny]

You can make the claims you want. You have not shot me down.

Oh, good comeback. However can I handle such rebuff?

Was your statement true, I suspect a half dozen links to the threads would be posted in response. Instead, I get the el lame-o answer of the year.

 

[Gunny]

You denied that you were calling a disorder a choice, now you've repeatedly shown it can be?

I haven't repeatedly called a disorder a choice. I've repeatedly explained exactly what I DO think; which, you have repeatedly ignored, sticking to parrotting this same accusation.

Let's get past your little game of semantics and cut to the chase. I don't care if it's a choice. I don't care if they prove conclusively that homosexuality is genetic in the next 10 minutes.

It's abnormal behavior, and should not be treated as anything other than what it is, and all of these little games of semantics that attempt to deflect from just that are just so much BS.

 

[MissileMan]

It's abnormal behavior, and should not be treated as anything other than what it is, and all of these little games of semantics that attempt to deflect from just that are just so much BS.

I've never claimed otherwise. And for the record, pointing out obvious contradictions isn't playing "semantics" and you know it. The BS is trying to conceal your contradictions with a mesh of feigned indignation.

 

[Gunny]

I've never claimed otherwise. And for the record, pointing out obvious contradictions isn't playing "semantics" and you know it. The BS is trying to conceal your contradictions with a mesh of feigned indignation.

There is no obvious contradiction, other than the one you have contrived and insist on perpetuating. Just another failed attempt at getting in the back door what you can't get through the front.

There's no indignation, feigned or otherwise. Perhaps disappointment since I have come to expect better arguments from you than the one you are trying to make now.

 

[MissileMan]

There is no obvious contradiction, other than the one you have contrived and insist on perpetuating. Just another failed attempt at getting in the back door what you can't get through the front.

There's no indignation, feigned or otherwise. Perhaps disappointment since I have come to expect better arguments from you than the one you are trying to make now.

More meaningless drivel to hide your inability to reconcile your choice/disorder contradictions. Give it up already!

 

[Gunny]

More meaningless drivel to hide your inability to reconcile your choice/disorder contradictions. Give it up already!

Okay. That was my attempt to be reasonable.

Frankly, I see no reason to give up a stance against a fallacious argument. There's no contradiction, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, and otherwise explained at a level that even a two-years-old can comprehend.

Your stance is intellectually dishonest, and is nothing more than a poor man's attempt to deflect from the the topic of homosexuality by using labels to suit yourself, and that have no impact on the reality of the topic.

 

[MissileMan]

Okay. That was my attempt to be reasonable.

Frankly, I see no reason to give up a stance against a fallacious argument. There's no contradiction, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, and otherwise explained at a level that even a two-years-old can comprehend.

Your stance is intellectually dishonest, and is nothing more than a poor man's attempt to deflect from the the topic of homosexuality by using labels to suit yourself, and that have no impact on the reality of the topic.

Bullshit! You were perfectly willing to acknowledge that homosexuality is a mental disorder until pressed to then also admit, that if it's a mental disorder, then it can't also be a choice. You've done your best job of ducking and dodging that admission, to include even saying that you don't care if it's genetic, a mental disorder, or a choice. If you don't care, then quit trying to argue that it's a choice, especially in light of your expressed opinion that it's a mental disorder.

BTW, your continued accusations of intellectual dishonesty could carry even an ounce of weight if you could demonstrate exactly how my arguments are anything other than logical and derived from common sense.

 

[Gunny]

Bullshit! You were perfectly willing to acknowledge that homosexuality is a mental disorder until pressed to then also admit, that if it's a mental disorder, then it can't also be a choice. You've done your best job of ducking and dodging that admission, to include even saying that you don't care if it's genetic, a mental disorder, or a choice. If you don't care, then quit trying to argue that it's a choice, especially in light of your expressed opinion that it's a mental disorder.

BTW, your continued accusations of intellectual dishonesty could carry even an ounce of weight if you could demonstrate exactly how my arguments are anything other than logical and derived from common sense.

There's no bullshit. First, until participating in this thread, I had no idea homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. You keep attemtping to present a mental disorder and choice as mutually exclusive, when in fact, they are both symptoms of the larger problem.

One could argue that any behavior not accepted as normal was the result of a mental disorder, since disorder translates into abnormality. Without the disorder, there is no aberrant choice. Without the aberrant choice, there is no evidence to prove the disorder.

About as simple as it gets.

 

[MissileMan]

There's no bullshit. First, until participating in this thread, I had no idea homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. You keep attemtping to present a mental disorder and choice as mutually exclusive, when in fact, they are both symptoms of the larger problem.

One could argue that any behavior not accepted as normal was the result of a mental disorder, since disorder translates into abnormality. Without the disorder, there is no aberrant choice. Without the aberrant choice, there is no evidence to prove the disorder.

About as simple as it gets.

It used to be classified as a mental disorder but is no longer considered one by the APA. I'm saying a disorder can lead to a choice, but a disorder isn't a choice. In that regard, yes I am arguing they are exclusive. An abstinant homosexual is STILL a homosexual. An abstinant alcoholic is STILL an alcoholic. The disorder isn't a symptom, it's a cause. The behavior that the disorder leads to is the symptom.

 

[Gunny]

It used to be classified as a mental disorder but is no longer considered one by the APA. I'm saying a disorder can lead to a choice, but a disorder isn't a choice. In that regard, yes I am arguing they are exclusive. An abstinant homosexual is STILL a homosexual. An abstinant alcoholic is STILL an alcoholic. The disorder isn't a symptom, it's a cause. The behavior that the disorder leads to is the symptom.

But how can anyone be sure an abstinent homosexual or alcoholic actually is what he claims if he/she never exhibits the behavior which the evidence that proves such a disorder?

Theoretically, I will agree that they can be mutually exclusive, but not practically. And I will use YOU as an example.

You say you don't beleive in God, and the biggest reason I've ever seen given by you is that there is no evidence that proves God exists. Yet, you will accept that a person who claims to have a disorder indeed has it, with no evidence to support the claim.

I am not saying behavior leads to homosexuality ... I am saying behavior is the evidence that proves the disorder indeed exists.

So, practically, for the purposes of scientific evidence, I consider the disorder and the evidence that proves the disorder mutually inclusive.

 

[MissileMan]

But how can anyone be sure an abstinent homosexual or alcoholic actually is what he claims if he/she never exhibits the behavior which the evidence that proves such a disorder?

Theoretically, I will agree that they can be mutually exclusive, but not practically. And I will use YOU as an example.

You say you don't beleive in God, and the biggest reason I've ever seen given by you is that there is no evidence that proves God exists. Yet, you will accept that a person who claims to have a disorder indeed has it, with no evidence to support the claim.

I am not saying behavior leads to homosexuality ... I am saying behavior is the evidence that proves the disorder indeed exists.

So, practically, for the purposes of scientific evidence, I consider the disorder and the evidence that proves the disorder mutually inclusive.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. If someone claims that they are sexually attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex, I don't have to see them carry through with their attraction to believe they're a homosexual. The same would go for attendees of an AA meeting...if they admit they're alcoholics, what would be the purpose for doubting them?