Cure yourself from homosexuality!
- Thread starter Druga Runda
- Start date
Natoma said:
The point I see you making I've heard many a times before from OCD patients, and I wager that alchohalics are akin. Just like them, you cite others (in this case the "bigots") in society who are the problem, not you of course... you feel fine. You are who you are... nevermind that who you are has a slight problem. You just take it to the next level and bust out the "Black Homosexual" label and get in line with the leftist community who is more than willing to support you.
Another thing which gets me is that nobody has really answered anything I said - other than some comment about spending too much time in a sciencebook, which I find funny.
Instead of looking to fact and the actual situation, you, Natoma, are quite happy sitting in a world of bliss in which you surround yourself with likeminded idiots and self-reinforce that the problem isn't in you, it's everyone else. You're normal, your natural - you have no biological problem. Anyone who even states anything remotely to the contrary is a "bigot" - nevermind you can't answer their challenges.
And this is the state of society today, isn't it great.
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing about here. Natoma is gay, and homosexuals are a deviation from the "norm" (however you want to classify that) - I think he'll accept that just as rapidly as you. So... what? What do we do now we've given him a label? Do we shoot him? There's nothing we can do about him being gay, beyond the kind of "brainwashing" talked about earlier, which may or may not work - and even if it does work, is it morally acceptable anyway?
Hell, we'll ignore the fact you're happily doing most of the things you're accusing Natoma of too - name calling, for one; pushing the blame around, for two. You're saying it's him with the problem, he's saying you're the one with the problem. Great.
Hell, we'll ignore the fact you're happily doing most of the things you're accusing Natoma of too - name calling, for one; pushing the blame around, for two. You're saying it's him with the problem, he's saying you're the one with the problem. Great.
PaulS said:
Well, in the context of this debate (which is why we're arguing it), if you agree that he's a deviation, then the question becomes why and what caused it. And then the next question is... how can you fix it. Which, amazingly enough, is what this thread was about.
PaulS said:
First of all, nobody is giving him a label. I even commeted on someone else using the word 'fag.' I'll be the first to stay away from using such labels, but what he's doing is wrong by invoking bigoty and racism and other classic -isms to demean those who have differing opinions without responding to their charges.
PaulS said:
Ok, lets go threw this. Name calling... how so, when I say I believe he has a problem? That homosexuality is a biological fuckup in the same vein as, say, OCD or Alchohalism... how is that namecalling? They are biological fuckups, further how do you know I dont suffer from one?
Pushing the blame around? Oh really.. where? I'm trying to find the cause and stated it might lie in a non-conscious entity in the enviroment, so how is that blame as opposed to the cause? He's blaming people who have nothing to do with the origionation of his condition, but rather who he feels hurts him... now thats blame.
Third, What else is he going to say? He's had ample oppertunity to reply to my charges with factual responces, but has yet to do so. I'm not surprised all he can do is ignore the facts and call people like myself or Legion or Joe "Bigots".
Maybe we are both missing the point the other is trying to make. I dont see your point, you dont see mine. Ill try one more time later today.Natoma said:
later,
epic
It seems people here want to misconstrue the topic in order to make this dicussion about discrimination when it is really about treating what NARTH sees as a pathology. The 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychopathologies was as arbitrary as any accussation of NARTH's coercion.
I am not seeing rebuttles of any kind here wts NARTH's allegations (or the like). Rather, i am seeing accussations of christian bigotry and coercion which strike me as equally bigotted and ridiculous.
This whole matter is obviously more of a psychological display of "in crowds" vs "out crowds" then it is a discussion. Either you are in support of the gay lobby's propaganda or your are a biggot.
It was determined long ago that i am infact a faggot hating bisexual though.
Vince said:
This is called "projection" or making others the source of the problem which is really caused by the individual who is projecting.
Its about time you got the clue they want to believe what they wish to regardless of the evidence. No one here has issued a rebuttle. They have only accussed and insulted.I am a bit curious were Digi went off to when it appeared earlier he was so confident in his argument.
Vince,
This is a complete waste of time. Look, you've compared me and every other gay person to drug addicts, alcoholics, deviants, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, beastiality practitioners, or worse, and are hellbent on proving biological inferiority and 'damage' by twisting any piece of science to fit your needs and wishes and ideological slant. And you cry crocodile tears when I call you a bigot.
Frankly even if science proves you completely and utterly wrong, you will probably still hold true to those beliefs, but this time for some other reason. Granted the same can be said for me, which is why I concede that I have neither the time, energy, or strength to deal with people like you or Legion or Joe on this matter anymore. You feel the way you feel. I've long gotten over it. Life marches on, and people like you are slowly but surely becoming an anachronism. Maybe you should get over it too.
epicstruggle,
I do see your point. Unfortunately it had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. You built your point on an assumption that was never there.
This is a complete waste of time. Look, you've compared me and every other gay person to drug addicts, alcoholics, deviants, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, beastiality practitioners, or worse, and are hellbent on proving biological inferiority and 'damage' by twisting any piece of science to fit your needs and wishes and ideological slant. And you cry crocodile tears when I call you a bigot.
Frankly even if science proves you completely and utterly wrong, you will probably still hold true to those beliefs, but this time for some other reason. Granted the same can be said for me, which is why I concede that I have neither the time, energy, or strength to deal with people like you or Legion or Joe on this matter anymore. You feel the way you feel. I've long gotten over it. Life marches on, and people like you are slowly but surely becoming an anachronism. Maybe you should get over it too.
epicstruggle,
I do see your point. Unfortunately it had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. You built your point on an assumption that was never there.
Yet you haven't presented any scientific evidence to support your claims. You haven't even address the bulk of scientific arguments against predisposition. At this time it could be said you are choosing to believe in predisposition for some other reason then what has been indicated to you by evidence.
If science proves us absolutely wrong then do enlighten us as to what this evidence would be. I have argued this topic with you perhaps a dozen times in this forum and you have yet to bring forth scientific evidence for your case. In fact, the one of us who has cited scientific tests/research on a regular basis has been myself. The notion a "gay" gene could be discovered is completely farcical. As we all learned from Dean Hamer no matter how much spin you put on research some one will eventually expose your fabrications. As developed and diverse a behavior as human sexuality is it would be impossible to explain such within genetic code.
As i have stated dozens of times before the premise of this argument is in line with the long dead instinct theory which has spawned such useless fields of psychology as evolutionary psychology.
You generally rehash the same arguments over and over again indicating to me you attempting to reinforce your beliefs by repeating rhetoric. You generally denounce my arguments and myself on the grounds i am uneducated in the fields of psychology and biology without any means by which to do so. Doesn't it ever bother you i quote psychology books in our debates? Has that ever indicated to you i may have some experience in the field of behavioral psychology/sociology?
I don't think you win any brownie points for attempting to look exasperated. You are merely choosing to avoid this discussion on the grounds you can not defend your position. That is a simple fact obvious to anyone who has read our debates before.
Tagrineth said:
You are drawing an absurd parrellel. i can't help but read your statement and realize you have nothing of substance to support your position and would rather turn to ridiculous analogies.
I guess being a moderator pays off especially when you feel like exploiting history in order to insult some one.
I have read this statement a dozen times and it just makes no damn sense. How does being a minority rendering some one not an aberration? Are paedaphiles justified by their minority status? Are rapists?
Legion said:
Paedophilia is illegal because it usually revolves around the exploitation of young children who don't know any better and/or are incapable of resisting. Most paedophilia that's publicised is tantamount to rape - like the priests thing. Do you think those kids had any idea they could've said no or resisted? Or if they had, do you think they would've been successful? In theory, if one could prove a teenager around ~12-14 was mature enough mentally as well as physically (which isn't really all that plausible), and he/she conscientiously consented to intercourse... what would the serious problem be?
And rape is of course quite wrong, as it involves nonconsentual sex, and in nearly all cases also involves some kind of physical damage.
Tagrineth said:
You ain't the only one, I had similar thoughts.
Completely irrelevant. Homosexuality was also historically outlawed (ie Marquis DeSade was tried for sadomy). Remember paedophilia is not static concept. Many cultures have practiced what we would consider paedophilia legally.
The point remains these inviduals and their behaviors aren't made normal (ie not aberant) by their minority status. Infact minority status is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this conversation and is a red herring.
i'd say historically thats not true. Nor would I say cross culturally. Furthermore whether its rape or not doesn't nulify my point. Being a minority does not make one normal.
Do i think this discussion is relevant. No.
Many cultures have had marriages as young as 12-14 to considerably older men. It is rather obvious children can be "mature" enough to deal with the situation and that our observations of maturity are purely cultural and limited to our presumptions of normality.
Some would say homosexuality is "quite wrong". Even ancient judaism justifies rape on many occassions within the bible. Its a matter of perspective not absolute morality.
