Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Announcements Posted on
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohirome)
    I see. Wonderful input there, thanks. You can quote yourself silly, but its not going to make your point any less ridiculous, hence why theres a strong majority here (and of course across the professional psych world) telling you that you're wrong. Its cool though, you're entitled to your opinion however ridiculous it may be. Keep spreading the paedophile love.
    Why are you quoting me and stating that my opinion is ridiculous? :confused:

    Do you actually agree with Stefan that pedophilia is a sexual orientation?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    I think you might have just quoted the wrong person...

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Why are you quoting me and stating that my opinion is ridiculous? :confused:

    Do you actually agree with Stefan that pedophilia is a sexual orientation?
    Whoops. Its nearly 3am...my brain isn't functioning too well. I am certainly on your side of the fence by an absolute country mile.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Yet more denial. First you say "all experts believe what I say" "no experts agree with you". Then I supply a list of almost 20 experts who explicitly disagree with you.

    How many studies and experts who agree with you have you provided? None. So stop pretending you have the science and experts on your side, it's embarassing watching someone make all these outrageous and baseless claims on no evidence at all.

    How many experts and scientific evidence will it take to change your mind? I'm guessing no number is enough to change the opinion of someone in denial :rolleyes: Please roll over and accept you don't know what you're talking about.
    If you're so obviously correct - why is that the vast majority, besides your supposed 20 people (which you haven't actually provided 20, but alright), disagree with you? Why is sexual orientation still defined as being attracted to a sex? What evidence do we have? I don't know - pick up a psychology 101 text book? Look at the definitions of sexual orientation provided by the APA, APA, the British Psychological Association and British Psychiatric Association? Look at the majority of the literature?
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohirome)
    Whoops. Its nearly 3am...my brain isn't functioning too well. I am certainly on your side of the fence by an absolute country mile.
    Haha! That's alright Completely forgivable.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Well you tell me, you seem to have all the definitions and keep changing your story. Your argument is falling to pieces. You say Mr. Fry is only attracted to '2 or 3' women. Since he is attracted to at least one woman it follows that it is possible he may be attracted to many women. 2 or 3 could become 20 or 30 or 200 or 300?

    A homosexual is only attracted to their own sex.

    Let me make this a little easier for you. Since you seem to love this organisation called the APA, let us use their definition of orientation:



    Now by this definition we can conclusively say, under the information presented in his regard, Mr. Fry's orientation is bisexual because he has demonstrated he is attracted to males and females.
    1. When have I 'changed my story'? :confused:

    2. I know what the APA defines sexual orientation as. It also elaborates into identities and such. Please read up. I already provided you with the link.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    The APA states that people experience little to no choice (a 'conservative statement) - which means that APA would still be correct if absolutely no experienced a choice. All of the research on hand, which the APA uses when assessing its official positions, indicates that there is no choice. So no, we do not have to accept the possibility that there may be some element of choice because no research indicates as such.
    I'll boil it down. Why do you not accept the possibility when the APA does?
    The APA is stating that there is, at the very least, little to no choice - which includes there being absolutely no choice - in that case, it would be, essentially, a vacuously true statement in the sense that no one ever experienced choice.
    I agree. But they have clearly deliberately not made the statement stronger to only mean 'no choice'.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    The APA states that people experience little to no choice (a 'conservative statement) - which means that APA would still be correct if absolutely no experienced a choice. All of the research on hand, which the APA uses when assessing its official positions, indicates that there is no choice. So no, we do not have to accept the possibility that there may be some element of choice because no research indicates as such.

    The APA is stating that there is, at the very least, little to no choice - which includes there being absolutely no choice - in that case, it would be, essentially, a vacuously true statement in the sense that no one ever experienced choice.
    Why do you keep mouthing off about the APA? The APA is not the authoritor of divine knowledge you know. It's just some American association which does not reflect the views of psychologists worldwide, that's apart from the fact they're incredibly biased with a paradigm which does not reflect scientific evidence. Only a few years ago they considered homosexuality a "severe" mental illness requiring treatment, and you still consider them credible? :lol:

    I guess you'd believe it if George Bush told you there were WMDs in Iran. :rolleyes:
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrosson)
    I'll boil it down. Why do you not accept the possibility when the APA does?
    No research has ever indicated that it's a choice; I've never met someone who chose to be a specific sexual orientation; I didn't choose to be gay; It's completely illogical to choose to be gay; you cannot choose to change your sexual orientation; etc.

    (Original post by Chrosson)
    I agree. But they have clearly deliberately not made the statement stronger to only mean 'no choice'.
    They leave open the possibility that some research at some point may either find 100% proof that it's not choice or that there are some people who do choose.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why do you keep mouthing off about the APA? The APA is not the authoritor of divine knowledge you know. It's just some American association which does not reflect the views of psychologists worldwide, that's apart from the fact they're incredibly biased with a paradigm which does not reflect scientific evidence. Only a few years ago they considered homosexuality a "severe" mental illness requiring treatment, and you still consider them credible? :lol:
    Your perception of time is incredibly off - it was more than 'a few years ago' that the APA changed their position.

    I think by 'a few years' you mean a few decades :rolleyes:

    The APA just happens to be the most highly respected and considered most accurate and knowledgable psychological association anywhere.

    Here's something even better:
    Why do you keep mouthing off about the minuscule amount of research which supposedly support you? They're just a handful of researchers and are not the the divine source of knowledge. :rolleyes:

    See look, I can do the same thing!

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I guess you'd believe it if George Bush told you there were WMDs in Iran. :rolleyes:
    Wow! What a great argument you have there! Clutching at straws in desperation now, are we?
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If you're so obviously correct - why is that the vast majority, besides your supposed 20 people (which you haven't actually provided 20, but alright), disagree with you? Why is sexual orientation still defined as being attracted to a sex? What evidence do we have? I don't know - pick up a psychology 101 text book? Look at the definitions of sexual orientation provided by the APA, APA, the British Psychological Association and British Psychiatric Association? Look at the majority of the literature?
    I've provided 17, it's good enough. It certainly beats your 0 :lol:

    Defintions you provide are meaningless, you need stop ignoring the scientific evidence. The institutions you keep quoting referred to homosexuality as a severe mental illness. They can define anything they want to however they want, despite evidence. Clinical defintions are not absolute. Their definitions are only as good as and have no more meaning than the prejudice which motivated it. Such defintions are unscientific, and merely political.

    Homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder, in such a way. Pedophilia is being persecuted and profited from in much the same way today, many expert psychologists argue that it should be declassified and classified as a sexual orientation as I have shown.

    Minor-attracted individuals have no essential characteristics that distinguish them, save that their sexual tendency is strongly directed towards young people. Just as heterosexuals have no other distinguishing characteristics. What we are debating is the activities of an individual, adult or child, not a de-personalised category. Pedophilia has no etymological root in behaviour, it's merely a sexual orientation.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I certainly do not agree with incest, I personally feel that it is disgusting. Of course I will personally say it is not natural, but in the current day and age, we cannot object to what to consenting adults do behind closed doors as long as it is not harming anyone, be it homosexuality or incest.

    Which lead me to the question why would someone accept homosexuality and not incest, you can say in both cases two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?
    Well if its heterosexual incest sex and even if a protection is used if it fails and the women get pregnant from my knowledge there is a high chance of the baby/babies being sickly and could die young along with being in pain.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    No research has ever indicated that it's a choice; I've never met someone who chose to be a specific sexual orientation; I didn't choose to be gay; It's completely illogical to choose to be gay; you cannot choose to change your sexual orientation; etc.



    They leave open the possibility that some research at some point may either find 100% proof that it's not choice or that there are some people who do choose.
    So this settles this particular argument. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SFsucks)
    Well if its heterosexual incest sex and even if a protection is used if it fails and the women get pregnant from my knowledge there is a high chance of the baby/babies being sickly and could die young along with being in pain.
    What about a homosexual incestuous relationship, is that 'wrong'?
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    So this settles this particular argument. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.
    Not really up to date on this pathetic debate.

    But surely having gay people saying 'I'm not gay through choice is evidence enough?!
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I've provided 17, it's good enough. It certainly beats your 0 :lol:
    Here, I can provide you with something better. Read all of other literature that's not your 17 studies

    Who has more sources here?

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Defintions you provide are meaningless
    LOL and somehow yours are worth something? Right....

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    you need stop ignoring the scientific evidence.
    There isn't any sufficient evidence to prove what you're trying to claim. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    The institutions you keep quoting referred to homosexuality as a severe mental illness.
    Oh no!? A large majority of psychologists used to think homosexuality was a mental illness - what's your point?

    Oh right, this is completely irrelevant and only goes to show you're clutching at straws to try to prove your point.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    They can define anything they want to however they want, despite evidence.
    Right... They don't use research on any of these subjects or consult their members and experts when making such statements. Are you seriously this ignorant?

    Look, I can make the same kind of ridiculous statement:
    Your researchers can define anything however they want, despite evidence.

    Wow - great.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Clinical defintions are not absolute. Their definitions are only as good as and have no more meaning than the prejudice which motivated it. Such defintions are unscientific, and merely political.
    Right... The APA's statements are not backed by research or anything - oh wait, they are.

    Are you seriously this ignorant?

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder, in such a way. Pedophilia is being persecuted and profited from in much the same way today, many expert psychologists argue that it should be declassified and classified as a sexual orientation as I have shown.
    And many, many, many others disagree with the handful you've provided. Using the commonly accepted definitions of sexual orientation, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation - and the majority of psychologists agree that it is not a sexual orientation. The main exception being the few you've provided.

    There are also some psychologists which think sexual orientation is a choice - are you going to claim they are credible?

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Minor-attracted individuals have no essential characteristics that distinguish them, save that their sexual tendency is strongly directed towards young people.
    People attracted to bondage situations have no essential characteristics that distinguish them, save their sexual tendency to favor such situations. What's your point?

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Just as heterosexuals have no other distinguishing characteristics. What we are debating is the activities of an individual, adult or child, not a de-personalised category. Pedophilia has no etymological root in behaviour, it's merely a sexual orientation.
    No, pedophilia is a paraphilia (a fetish); not a sexual orientation.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    What about a homosexual incestuous relationship, is that 'wrong'?
    Personally incest in general does make me go YUCK but yeah I see your point on homo incest.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    So this settles this particular argument. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.
    It depends on what you consider 'conclusive' - no research has ever indicated that it is a choice. All research has found the opposite to be true.

    I would very safely claim that homosexuality is not a choice and assert it as 100% true.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It depends on what you consider 'conclusive' - no research has ever indicated that it is a choice. All research has found the opposite to be true.

    I would very safely claim that homosexuality is not a choice and assert it as 100% true.
    Again you have no proof therefore your claim is strictly opinion rather than fact.

    If you re read my original post I am not claiming if it is a choice or not, I feel the fair thing to do is examine both cases.

    You however claimed it was not a choice therefore I simply asked for evidence to back up your a claim, you have provided none so your argument is invalid.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Normal Homosexuality. A relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex.
    vs
    Normal paedophilia. A one-way relationship between a consenting adult and a non consenting child.

    Comparing the two isn't even up for debate, seriously grow up.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Your perception of time is incredibly off - it was more than 'a few years ago' that the APA changed their position.

    I think by 'a few years' you mean a few decades :rolleyes:

    The APA just happens to be the most highly respected and considered most accurate and knowledgable psychological association anywhere.

    Here's something even better:
    Why do you keep mouthing off about the minuscule amount of research which supposedly support you? They're just a handful of researchers and are not the the divine source of knowledge. :rolleyes:

    See look, I can do the same thing!
    Looks like your very own APA agrees with me.

    Researchers push for APA to destigmatize pedophilia
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/De...spx?id=1413686

    http://narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html
    "For many years now, psychology has been locked into a philosophical quandary. Is "mental illness" something that's unhealthy according to an objective, scientifically "neutral" standard? The truth is, there are no universally agreed upon, external validating criteria that can objectively prove most psychiatric diagnoses to be illnesses.

    This problem has come to the fore now in the case of pedophilia. Child molestation is illegal and our culture considers it morally wrong--but some clinicians say an attraction to children can't be considered a mental illness."

    "In an earlier version of the diagnostic manual (DSM-III) , the American Psychiatric Association contended that merely acting upon one's urges toward children was considered sufficient to generate a diagnosis of pedophilia."
    This means someone is only a "pedophile" if they act upon their urges towards children. This means that the vast majority of people who are attracted to children cannot be classified as "pedophiles". Therefore the only suitable term that can be used is "paedosexual".

    "But then a few years later, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed its criteria in a way that made room for the psychologically normal type of pedophile. A person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." In other words, a man who molested children without remorse, and without experiencing significant impairment in his social and work relationships, could be diagnosed--at least theoretically--as a "psychologically normal" type of pedophile."

    This means that even those who do engage in sexual activity with children do not necessarily have the "pedophile" mental disorder and do not suffer from a paraphilia, as a mental disorder can only be something which causes harm, which is not an attribute of paedosexuality.

    "APA said that no matter what the research showed either way about the psychological effects of pedophile relationships--pedophilia remained, in its opinion, "morally" wrong."
    This means that the APA considers adult-child relationships "morally wrong" regardless of the scientific evidence pointing to the fact that they are harmless and in many cases "positive". This smacks of prejudice and political bias.

    "Morally wrong? This was an odd statement indeed from a scientific organization. What, then, was the APA's moral position on, say...adultery or abortion? What about sexually open relationships? Would APA have an official position on polygamy? The very fact that APA admitted to holding a moral viewpoint on a psychological issue ought to have opened up a broad new challenge to psychology's authority and its moral presumptions as our culture's new secular priesthood."
    What gives the APA the authority to be the arbiter of morality and ignore scientific evidence? They view paedophilia as "immoral" yet admit there is no evidence it's a mental disorder, a paraphilia, or causes harm to anyone.

    Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class.

    Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

    In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges."

    Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, "Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children."

    The American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a report in 1998 “claiming that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.’ It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were ‘positive,’ and suggested that the phrase ‘child sex abuse’ be replaced with ‘adult-child sex.’

    In fact, some psychiatric leaders, like Dr. Richard Green, who were instrumental in removing homosexuality from the APA’s list of mental disorders in 1973, have been fighting to remove pedophilia as well.

    Consider, for example, this statement from the late John Hopkins professor John Money: “Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.”

    1) Pedophilia is innate and immutable.
    2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
    3) The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
    4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
    5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
    6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
    7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
    8) This is all about love and equality and liberation.
Updated: April 15, 2012
New on TSR

Single, dating or in a relationship?

Chat about your life and loves in our Relationships forum!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.