[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by shake_it)
Would you describe poetry as irrelevant, because it isn't literal? I would not.

You're comparing all forms of poetry to the Bible's account of historical facts? Why? No one is claiming we build a Church devoted to Elizabeth the First declaring her a virtuous deity because Spenser wrote it allegorically. Such poetry isn't meant to be interpreted literally; the Bible, however, is. Do you believe all of the Bible is simply metaphorical and lacks any historical integrity and relevance?
I don't even see the relevance in your second point.

[ColyTom]

I can't believe this is being asked :/

[ken2]

The world have changed so much so that no one gives two shíts if some one takes it up the arse or not.

I personally have too much problems of my own to worry about someone else's sexuality.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[shake_it]

(Original post by Id and Ego seek)
You're comparing all forms of poetry to the Bible's account of historical facts? Why? No one is claiming we build a Church devoted to Elizabeth the First declaring her a virtuous deity because Spenser wrote it allegorically. Such poetry isn't meant to be interpreted literally; the Bible, however, is. Do you believe all of the Bible is simply metaphorical and lacks any historical integrity and relevance?
I don't even see the relevance in your second point.

You don't understand my first point either.

NO, Bible should not be interpreted individually, some parts are parabolas (is it right expression?) and they are meant to be metaphorical.

And NO, not everything in Bible is of historical relevance and it is has been officially stated by the Vatican. End of topic.

My point is that Bible can not be read literally in every place and its literariness does not make it irrelevant, neither does it make poetry irrelevant.

You are an atheist, I am not and it's gonna be the same after the end of this discussion, trust me

[Id and Ego seek]

(Original post by shake_it)
You don't understand my first point either.

NO, Bible should not be interpreted individually, some parts are parabolas (is it right expression?) and they are meant to be metaphorical.

And NO, not everything in Bible is of historical relevance and it is has been officially stated by the Vatican. End of topic.

My point is that Bible can not be read literally in every place and its literariness does not make it irrelevant, neither does it make poetry irrelevant.

You are an atheist, I am not and it's gonna be the same after the end of this discussion, trust me

I know, this is exactly my point: for the Bible to be relevant as a documentation of historical phenomena and events, it has to be completely literal, bar the parables told by Jesus and co. If the Bible isn't completely literal, it shouldn't be considered the 'word of God' due to the inconsistencies and different accounts (Resurrection for one) which reflect badly on the character of God. If then the Bible is merely a book which was intended as confessions of faith, then they’re also signs that maybe what is described didn’t happen at all. Which brings me to my actual point: which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical and how do you know? For most Christians, church fathers and scholars certainly thought that many if not most of its stories were literally true. Completely ignoring Jesus' parables and the anthropomorphic descriptions of God - as those are clearly metaphorical; how do you know Adam and Eve existed and that story wasn't completely, well, a story? How do you know God really created the world? How do you know Leviticus, and God, really condemned homosexuality? The fact the Bible is somewhat liberal in interpretation isn't a strength: it poses far more problems than it solves, which is why I think it's becoming irrelevant in ethical discourse. Any comment it makes on modern society and standards should be skeptically evaluated and not followed blindly.

I'm not an Atheist, by the way.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by ken2)
The world have changed so much so that no one gives two shíts if some one takes it up the arse or not.

Intentional pun or not?

[ByronicHero]

No.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by shake_it)
The Vatican agree with the Darwin's Theory, so the "description of evolution" in the Bible is suited to intellectual capability of the average people of that times.

lol doesn't mean much since everyone except the Vatican reckons that they are the Beast described in the book of Revelation

[SmokeOnTheWater]

(Original post by tufc)
No, it means it's unwholesome. Look back to my first post in this topic: the first thing I did was say that I don't think homosexuality is immoral.

Whole report
Where that particular stat is mentioned.

Sooo, you didn't read the study did you. Let alone the abstract?

"Both partners from gay and lesbian cohabiting couples without children were compared longitudinally with both partners from heterosexual married couples with children (N at first assessment = 80, 53, and 80 couples, respectively) on variables from 5 domains indicative of relationship health. For 50% of the comparisons, gay and lesbian partners did not differ from heterosexual partners. Seventy-eight percent of the comparisons on which differences were found indicated that gay or lesbian partners functioned better than heterosexual partners did. Because the variables that predicted concurrent relationship quality and relationship stability for heterosexual parents also did so for gay and lesbian partners, I conclude that the processes that regulate relationship functioning generalize across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples."

Also see that it was 'Both partners from gay and lesbian cohabiting couples without children were compared longitudinally with both partners from heterosexual married couples with children'. Children must be confounding variable here. The author admits: "... the data I collected were limited. I make no claim that the samples of couples are representative, all measures were open to the biases associated with self-report, partners from the different types of couples were not matched on demographic variables, and gay and lesbian partners who were also parents were not studied."

An interesting conclusion from the author is also: "In particular, there is no evidence that gay partners and lesbian partners were psychologically maladjusted, that they had high levels of personality traits that predisposed them to relationship problems, that they had dysfunctional working models of their relationships, and that they used ineffective strategies to resolve conflict. The only area in which gay and lesbian partners fared worse than heterosexual parents was in the area of social support"

So the lack of social support is a variable in the equality in homosexual and heterosexual relashionships. Interesting that opinions like yours may be what is causing any equality discrepancy.

The author also points out that: "to the extent that marriage is regarded as a social and legal institution, conferring the right of marriage to gay men and lesbians might actually defend their relationships against the stresses that plague any couple in the early critical stages of the relationship, stresses that may lead to premature dissolution." So marriage may make the relashionship 'more wholesome'.. as you put it.

This study does not support your opinions.

[Arizona Dreamer]

(Original post by King Kebab)
It saddens me that these questions are still being asked in this day and age.

I agree


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Pyramidologist]

If homosexuality is accepted as a mental illness, then a cure could be found. Most homosexuals though out of denial and insecurity try to 'normalise' homosexuality, and this has prevented scientists from trying to find a cure.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
If homosexuality is accepted as a mental illness, then a cure could be found. Most homosexuals though out of denial and insecurity try to 'normalise' homosexuality, and this has prevented scientists from trying to find a cure.

Please, stop trying to pretend you understand what the word 'mental illness' means.

Mental illness is defined as something which causes psychological harm, distress or dysfuntion. Homosexuality meets none of these criteria, as has been studied and found through numerous studies conducted over the past few decades.

You're not a mental health expert; you do not study psychology; you have obviously never actually taken the time to study the topic of human sexuality. So please, do everyone a favor, and remove your complete and total ignorance from this thread.

Your argument has been "It goes against human evolution and is therefore a mental illness". I have no idea where you came up with this ridiculous idea, but it's just that - ridiculous. Just because something supposedly goes against "human evolution" doesn't make it a mental illness.

Secondly, there is no concrete evidence to even suggest that homosexuality is, in fact, somehow contrary to human evolution. A number of theories have been proposed which argue exactly that. To say "homosexuality causes or leads to people not having babies" is (1) untrue and (2) assumes a very limited understanding of 'human evolution'.

Please, take your ignorance elsewhere.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
If homosexuality is accepted as a mental illness, then a cure could be found. Most homosexuals though out of denial and insecurity try to 'normalise' homosexuality, and this has prevented scientists from trying to find a cure.

Except that homosexuality is not a mental illness and has been shown through many many studies. Also there has been no evidence that reparative therapy works which is the 'curing' you claim would happen.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Please, stop trying to pretend you understand what the word 'mental illness' means.

Mental illness is defined as something which causes psychological harm, distress or dysfuntion. Homosexuality meets none of these criteria, as has been studied and found through numerous studies conducted over the past few decades.

You're not a mental health expert; you do not study psychology; you have obviously never actually taken the time to study the topic of human sexuality. So please, do everyone a favor, and remove your complete and total ignorance from this thread.

Your argument has been "It goes against human evolution and is therefore a mental illness". I have no idea where you came up with this ridiculous idea, but it's just that - ridiculous. Just because something supposedly goes against "human evolution" doesn't make it a mental illness.

Secondly, there is no concrete evidence to even suggest that homosexuality is, in fact, somehow contrary to human evolution. A number of theories have been proposed which argue exactly that. To say "homosexuality causes or leads to people not having babies" is (1) untrue and (2) assumes a very limited understanding of 'human evolution'.

Please, take your ignorance elsewhere.

Homosexuality is regarded as a mental illness or disorder today by many psychiatists. ''A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed'' (Whitehead, 2004).

See the following publication by NARTH:

Whitehead, N.E., “Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems.” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. September 19, 2004.

It is you who is ignorant of the research which shows homosexuality is not normal. What motivates you instead of science is egalitarian politics.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Homosexuality is regarded as a mental illness or disorder today by many psychiatists. ''A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed'' (Whitehead, 2004).

See the following publication by NARTH:

Whitehead, N.E., “Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems.” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. September 19, 2004.

It is you who is ignorant of the research which shows homosexuality is not normal. What motivates you instead of science is egalitarian politics.

NARTH! LOL! This is, case in point, why no one will ever take you seriously.

Please, when you can find a credible source, come back.

NARTH has been proven to be a biased, non-reliable source. The fact that you just tried to even cite NARTH shows you completely ignorant and know nothing about psychology; nor have you ever studied psychology. A psychology professor would literally laugh their ass off at you right now and give you an F (if this were in a paper context) for using a non-reliable, non-credible source.

NARTH papers aren't even peer-reviewed. LOLOLOL. Aka they don't meet scientific research requirements!
NARTH has been criticized, multiple times, for distorting research, using flawed methodology, not meeting peer-review requirements, etc. NARTH is known to be headed by people with an agenda (which their clearly biased and unacceptable research shows), and is funded by organizations which think and/or want homosexuality to be labeled as a mental illness.

Please, go be ignorant elsewhere.

If you're going to pretend that you actually know psychology and are familiar with psychology, both as a topic and research within psychology, then at least have the knowledge to know when a source is 'credible' and when it isn't. Congratulations on proving to everyone you know nothing about psychological research.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Homosexuality is regarded as a mental illness or disorder today by many psychiatists. ''A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed'' (Whitehead, 2004).

See the following publication by NARTH:

Whitehead, N.E., “Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems.” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. September 19, 2004.

It is you who is ignorant of the research which shows homosexuality is not normal. What motivates you instead of science is egalitarian politics.

NARTH is not a credible psychological or psychiatric association. Their studies are highly flawed and filled with bias. They have also been known to use studies incorrectly. So I suggest finding a more credible source of information before you make such claims. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness nor that it can be 'cured' or changed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Devel]

Was it not a significant member of NARTH that got caught with a male prostitute?

[Dmon1Unlimited]

52 pages? bloody hell, give it a rest already, it isnt immoral...

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by NYU2012)
NARTH! LOL!

Please, when you can find a credible source, come back.

NARTH has been proven to be a biased, non-reliable source. The fact that you just tried to even cite NARTH shows you completely ignorant and know nothing about psychology; nor have you ever studied psychology. A psychology professor would literally laugh their ass off at you right now and give you an F (if this were in a paper context) for using a non-reliable, non-credible source.

NARTH papers aren't even peer-reviewed. LOLOLOL. Aka they don't meet scientific research requirements!

Please, go be ignorant elsewhere.

Neil Whitehead: PhD in biochemistry. Employed as a scientist with the NZ Govt (24 years), the United Nations (4 years), more recently a scientific research consultant. Author of over over 140 published scientific papers.

This goes back to what i said a few pages back:

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Debating the pro-homosexuals is like debating creationists. They just dismiss all evidence contrary to their own views.

No evidence presented is good enough. You are a troll who just sits in this thread baiting for someone to respond with different views and then reject their evidence. Creationists do exactly the same thing.

[FatCharlie]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Homosexuality is regarded as a mental illness or disorder today by many psychiatists. ''A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed'' (Whitehead, 2004).

See the following publication by NARTH:

Whitehead, N.E., “Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems.” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. September 19, 2004.

It is you who is ignorant of the research which shows homosexuality is not normal. What motivates you instead of science is egalitarian politics.

I'd love if the state decided that it's an illness. Then basically all homosexual people can call in sick at work and live of your taxes for their whole life