The Homosexual Dilemma

[Syriusly]

I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.

The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...

"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!

Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal same bag of slime - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.

I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people

homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.

They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.

They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.

 

[Syriusly]

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm. They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of ****** loving Liberals pushing that agenda.

So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument? Bet you don't.

Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.

"If Harry Potter taught us anything, it's that nobody deserves to live in a closet. "

I don't think she/it realizes that Harry Potter is a fictional character.

Much like their fictional claim that two people of the same gender marrying is normal.

Mixed race marriage wasn't normal- now it is.

In a few years the same will be true for same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

And solid, tangible benefits to society.

Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?

Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.

Homophobes are pissed off about that.

 

[Lilah]

They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.

And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.

Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.

In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men. A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.

Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.

Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.

No thank you.

Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.

Odd, you didn't present it as satire.

Glad I asked.

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.

That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.

As a result of very limited research, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...

"....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research. "

Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure and false evidence.

The APA vs. you

Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books


Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "appalling beyond imagination." Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, "the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals,"

There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "Thous shalt not oppose LGBT" under penalty of Academic death

In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men. A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual.

You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...

Anyway - leave your son in the care of a ****** and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person.

Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases

Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.

It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

What we're seeing here is little more than the reemergence of Old Testament EVIL... it's a lie, wrapped in a deceit, pushed through illicit means toward to goal of getting people to accept that which will inevitably destroy them.

Do ever read what you are proselytizing? Scientists look for answers in objective ways by testing facts and theories.
What exactly is the inherent credibility of the government? Would that credibility be found in our leaders in Congress? Didn't Michael Grimm just resign due to felony charges?
"It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant." What exactly are you alluding to?
You give little credence to the human race by assuming we are ignorant, unable to formulate a thought for ourselves.
Your prejudice, superstition, and disdain for those who do not follow your undertakings to malign the minority communities will inevitably destroy our society.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.

Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.

You don't have a right to get married. Nowhere does such a right exist.
.
.

The Supreme Court says you are wrong- and ignorant. We all have the right to get married.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Syriusly]

I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.

Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.

No more bizarre than the opposition to equal rights for any other minority group.

At its root is bigotry.

 

[Syriusly]

They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.

And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.

Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.

In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men. A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.

Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.

Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.

No thank you.

Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.

Odd, you didn't present it as satire.

Glad I asked.

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.

That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.

As a result of very limited research, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...

"....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research. "

Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure and false evidence.

The APA vs. you

Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books


Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "appalling beyond imagination." Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, "the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals,"

There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "Thous shalt not oppose LGBT" under penalty of Academic death

In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men. A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual.

You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...

Anyway - leave your son in the care of a ****** and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person.

Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases

Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.

It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

What we're seeing here is little more than the reemergence of Old Testament EVIL... it's a lie, wrapped in a deceit, pushed through illicit means toward to goal of getting people to accept that which will inevitably destroy them.

The left leaning liberals have an agenda that has nothing to do with teaching children how to think and everything to do with teaching them what to think, or to think in politically correct terms by the official standards set forth by the Democratic party definitions.

In 1979, during the Carter Administration, the Department of Education Organization Act was passed, the U.S. Department of Education began operating in 1980 as a cabinet level position, and the education systems have been going steadily down hill ever since.

Some tenets of the so called Educational System include ...

Promoting Racial Division


Promoting Sexual Perversion


Re-Writing History

Promoting Left Wing Political Causes


]

Your post is Orwellian- about the only thing you left out is

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

What you call 'promoting racial division', non-bigots call promoting racial equality and opposing racial discrimination.
What you call 'promoting sexual perversion', non-bigots call promoting the end of homophobic bullying
What you call 're-writing history', non-bigots call facts.
What you call 'promoting left wing political causes', non-bigots call partisan blinders.

What a hater you are.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.

Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.

No more bizarre than the opposition to equal rights for any other minority group.

At its root is bigotry.

Since marriage isn't a right, fight for equality of something that isn't makes such groups like the fags look stupid.

 

[hazlnut]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

You like it rubbed ON your face?

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

I guess you're not familiar with segregation and the civil rights movement. Hell, you don't even seem to know about slavery and how slave owners used the bible to justify their "beliefs".

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

special rights, like what?

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

Isolated examples.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

Fame? The old fashion way was through steroids.

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Face it, you're a homophobe and you don't like that more people aren't like you. A bitter, bigot.

GO to hell. And leave the country if you don't like it here.

 

[Skylar]

Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.

They did initially. But after decades of studies, they could find no actual psychopathology associated with homosexuality.

homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities"

American Psychiatric Association, 1974

Homosexuals had the same mental functioning as heterosexuals. They had similarly sound judgment, could think as cognitively, were as stable when tested. They were in fact indistinguishable in psychological testing as their healthy heterosexual counterparts. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals was sexual preference. And the APA concluded that the stark lack of psychopathology among homosexuals demonstrated that homosexuality was not itself psychopathology. The American Psychological Association reviewed the evidence and came to the same conclusion in 1975.

The evidence convinced them. And since then, the evidence has only gotten stronger. Reinforcing their findings from more than 40 years ago.

You say that homosexuality is a mental illness. And you don't know what the **** you're talking about. You have no training in psychopathology. You have no experience in the field. And you're emotionally invested in personal enmity toward homosexuals to such a degree that you'll ignore any source that doesn't agree with you. Even if those sources are eminently qualified, backed with evidence, and have decades of experience. Your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you.

And you're nobody. Which begs the question......what possible relevance does your personal beliefs have with the actual mental health of homosexuals? And the answer is obvious:

None.

As a result of very limited research, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...

Your assessment of controversial and tainted is that a source disagree with you. If they don't find what you believe, then they lack credibility. Its a perfect circle of bullshit, as you only hear what you already believe.

But why would we ignore a source just because it disagrees with you? Again, you're nobody. And you've demonstrated profoundly poor reasoning skills regarding homosexuals. Offering us the fetid rhetorical turd of 'a self identified heterosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, and is in a heterosexual relationship with a woman, is actually a gay man' nonsense. All so you can continue to rail against homosexuals.

Agreement with you simply isn't a standard of credibility. Nor does disagreement with you reduce credibility. Not to anyone who doesn't share your irrational prejudices.

Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.

And this is the folly of your process. As you lack objectivity. You only accept sources as valid if they agree with what you already believe. If they don't, you ignore them completely. The APA, with 134,000 members is summarily dismissed by you because they don't agree with you. While you've repeatedly cited the Family Research Council, an openly biased source that has flagrantly misrepresented the research of other scientists, as they agree with you.

You're literally violating your own standards of 'scientific objectivism', and embracing the very cherry picking you claim to condemn. All so you can rail against gays.

Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.

Dr. Cummings says what you believe, so he's a 'true scientist'. If he didn't, you wouldn't be citing him. Worse, you're citing and ignoring your own sources. As Cumming's criticism of the APA is for its stance on reparative therapy. He stands by his assessment that homosexuality isn't a mental illness. With his criticism of the organization occurring in the 1980s. A decade after the APA made its assessment regarding homosexuality.

All of which you know, but really hope we don't.

But as is your way, you ignore anything that you don't want to believe. So you'll cite Cummings in as much as he agrees with you. And ignore him on what you don't. Where by any rational standard, he's either a credible source, or he isn't.

You're literally citing and ignoring the same source. And demonstrating oh-so elegantly how utterly devoid your process is of objectivity. And how eagerly you embrace the cherry picking fallacy.

You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...

You're confusing me for you. You pull numbers out of your ass. So you assume that everyone else must as well. Just like you cherry pick flagrantly and assume everyone else must as well.

Perhaps this will help alleviate your confusion.

In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." -

Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents Issues and Concerns - FindLaw

With the study being listed here:

Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals

All of which you'll ignore because you don't want to believe it. Just like you'll ignore the American Psychiatric association. Just like you'll ignore the American Psychological Association. Just like you ignored Dr. Cummings. Your only standard of credibility is that a source agree with you.

You're like the Avatar of confirmation bias. And remain spectacularly, willfully ignorant. But the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And we're not similarly obligated to ignore any source that is inconvenient to your argument.

Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases

Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.

The obvious problem is that you're not being objective. Almost all sexual molesters of children are self identified heterosexuals. With 74% of the abusers of boys being heterosexual men in heterosexual relationships with the mothers or other close female relative of the boy they molested. So per you reasoning, a self identifying heterosexual man, who is sexually attracted to women, who is in a heterosexual physical relationship with a woman.........is actually a gay man?

Laughing....that's absurd. You can type the word 'objective', but you can't apply the meaning. Your hatred overrides your reason.

 

[Syriusly]

They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.

And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.

Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.

In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men. A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.

Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.

Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.

No thank you.

Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.

Odd, you didn't present it as satire.

Glad I asked.

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness

homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness for 23 years- the APA declared it a pathology in 1950- and changed that designation in 1973.

Homophobes like yourself cling to a brief period in the history of mental health- that changed over 40 years ago.

Psychology did study homosexuality- and with mixed results. The reality is that the initial designation of homosexuality as a disease was not based on firm science but was a mixture of politics and science- and that is how the designation changed also.

There is an excellent history of the change of the DSM

Transcript This American Life

Now, prior to Evelyn Hooker, all of the research in homosexuality-- all of it-- was done on people who were already under serious psychiatric treatment. Let me repeat that. In the history of psychiatric research, no one had ever conducted a study on a homosexual population that wasn't either in therapy, or prison, a mental hospital, or the disciplinary barracks of the armed services.

Evelyn thought about this. And decided that this kind of research was distorting psychiatry's conclusions about homosexual populations. To test her theory, Evelyn came up with an experiment. Through her former student, she located 30 homosexuals who had never sought therapy in their lives, and matched those homosexuals with a group of heterosexuals of comparable age, IQ, and education. Evelyn then put both groups through a battery of psychological tests, including a Rorschach test, the famous ink blot test.

After disguising her subjects, Evelyn gave the results to three experienced psychiatrists and asked them to identify the homosexuals. She figured that if homosexuals were inherently pathological, the psychiatrists would be able to pick them out easily. But the judges were completely unable to distinguish the homos from hets. Equally important was the fact that the judges categorized 2/3 of both the homosexuals and the heterosexuals as perfectly well adjusted normally functioning human beings.

And my favorite quote from that story:

In other words, each side continues to charge the other with being unscientific. Ronald Bayer is a public health historian at Columbia University, who has written a history of the change in the DSM and how psychiatrists view homosexuality.

Ronald Bayer
The interesting thing, in a debate like this, is both sides wrap themselves in the mantle of science. And both sides charge that the other side is being unscientific. That is just the nature of these controversies. But the fundamental question of whether or not homosexuality is a disease, it seems to me, is not a scientific question.

 

[Syriusly]

the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.

Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GreenBean and Keys' social con nonsense is rejected overwhelmingly by the millennial generation, so all they are really doing is bloviating and blathering. Most youth and young aldults in social con churches reject such nonsense as well.

Keys, there will only be a war against those who war against society, so I suggest you stop your war crys.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm. They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of ****** loving Liberals pushing that agenda.

So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument? Bet you don't.

Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.

Telling a bunch of faggots and lesbians no isn't oppressive unless you're willing to claim that the only answer to any of your requests should be yes.

They're not dying off. My children are very well aware that people like you aren't normal. They'll continue the fight.

Then they too will be social pariahs.

Topline data in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, support that conclusion. In addition to 77 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds (63 percent "strongly"), gay marriage is broadly backed by 30- to 39-year-olds, 68 percent. That falls to half of 40- to 64-year-olds, and bottoms out at 38 percent of seniors.

Americans Ideology and Age Drive Gay Marriage Views - ABC News

 

[Skylar]

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.

Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.

You don't have a right to get married. Nowhere does such a right exist.

Says you. The courts have long recognized that marriage is a fundamental right.

Your agreement or disagreement is simply irrelevant to the status of marriage as a right. As our rights aren't based on your agreement.

Fags marrying doesn't strengthen monogamy any more than normal marriages doing so.

And I think that heterosexual marriages strengthen monogamy too. More marriage, more monogamy. What's not to love?

The downside is that two freaks think marrying someone of the same gender is normal.

How is are two people that love each other getting married a 'downside'? What is the cost? Because we've already established the elaborate benefits.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That is SO true.

Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.

I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

Is that how court cases are decided?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Does it ever occur to you that gay marriage will actually strengthen society, rather than weaken it?

Yes. In fact, if most men entered a gay marriage, women would be left on the streets, heralding a return to the natural order or breadwinner and caretaker.

Too bad most of us aren't gay though.

I had to bring a girl back from El Salvador, because the feminist indocrinated women of America want men to be both breadwinner and caretaker of the household.

Have my babies, take care of them, make food. Keep the nest clean. If you nag me I'll put my cock in your mouth. Don't like it? There's the door.

"But I'm a career oriented woman!"

 

[Seawytch]

I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

Is that how court cases are decided?

It is a factor, yes. It's one of the primary reason anti gay marriage laws are losing...the bigots cannot come up with a societal harm that meets a reasonable person standard.

 

[Skylar]

I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.

Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time. Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?

Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.

Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.

If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.

Is that how court cases are decided?

Factually? Yeah. That's how court cases are decided. The 'harm' to society imagined by your ilk just hasn't happened. While the harm of denying marriage equality is well established. And recognized by the courts.

 

[Skylar]

Does it ever occur to you that gay marriage will actually strengthen society, rather than weaken it?

Yes. In fact, if most men entered a gay marriage, women would be left on the streets, heralding a return to the natural order or breadwinner and caretaker.

Huh? Most men aren't entering a gay marriage.

I had to bring a girl back from El Salvador, because the feminist indocrinated women of America want men to be both breadwinner and caretaker of the household.

Wait, what? What possible relevance does gay marriage have with your personal baggage with heterosexual women?