This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Homosexuality - What people think.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MostUncivilised
You made an argument from authority, based on the medical qualifications of those you cited. You therefore did what you accused others of doing.
INCORRECT. I don't even have a quote which says that those people claim homosexuality is a pathology. I am taking facts and making conclusions myself unlike YOU and your simpleton FLOCK LOGIC.
Original post by MostUncivilised
Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Being accused of being -phobic or intolerant by you is like being accused of slouching by the hunchback of Notre Dame.
Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Being accused of being -phobic or intolerant by you is like being accused of slouching by the hunchback of Notre Dame.
I'm phobic and intolerant?
Do you think schizophrenics are pathological? If yes then you are a 'szchizophrenic-phobic' and 'intolerant'. You have no idea what you're talking about you cultural marxist.Original post by MostUncivilised
You seem to be getting quite worked up and upset. All I'm stating is the facts; the former USSR is primitive by comparison to the Anglosphere. It is a poor, violent and corrupt place where poverty is rife and human rights are not respected. Life expectancies are low. Homophobia and intolerance is to be expected from such a backward place.
You seem to be getting quite worked up and upset. All I'm stating is the facts; the former USSR is primitive by comparison to the Anglosphere. It is a poor, violent and corrupt place where poverty is rife and human rights are not respected. Life expectancies are low. Homophobia and intolerance is to be expected from such a backward place.
Oh, more Russophobia. The Anglosphere is an equally violent and corrupt place where poverty is rife and human rights are not respected and that has bombed dozens of countries multiple times on phony pretexts during modern history and killed millions of innocent people, but of course you are blind because of your racism and hate. Intolerance is to be expected from such a backward place that has no respect for foreign cultures and civilizations. It's as fact as your unfounded opinions. You're just talking, but talking nothing.
(edited 10 years ago)
To 'Dr' Khan and Alastair Mac Tir:
I am not a medical authority nor am I a member of the LGBT community. I am however educated enough and humble enough not to spout outlandish and virulantly homophobic garbage under the pretense of 'science'.
Instead of making up the rambling, ambiguous horse-manure pseudoscience that is just a waste of bandwith, I have the wit and the background to PROPERLY search for citations from REPUTABLE medical authorities (that are not 23-24 years out of date).
During the Supreme Court hearing on the DOMA case last year (Windsor) a number of medical associations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Edie Windsor's WINNING case. In the first part of that brief these eminent bodies stated:
Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage-cases.pdf
Do read the brief, it cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of LGBT couples and their civil rights to enter marriage and form families, just as their heterosexual brothers and sisters do.
Furthermore the American Foundation for Equal Rights has an excellent resources page with links which cites medical associations which include the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The page is mostly focused on debunking the myth that sexual orientation can be changed, but includes this statement:
American Psychiatric Association:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation… the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation…”
http://www.afer.org/our-work/resources/fundamental-attribute/
Dr Khan, you said that you do not wish that homosexuals be imprisoned or killed for their sexuality but by posting such an inflammatory question in the name of religion you are 'validating' the anti-gay rhetoric which feeds anti-gay violence. So yes,you are homophobic.
And as for Alastair - for pity's sake, please do some PROPER research... and don't forget to take your meds!
I am not a medical authority nor am I a member of the LGBT community. I am however educated enough and humble enough not to spout outlandish and virulantly homophobic garbage under the pretense of 'science'.
Instead of making up the rambling, ambiguous horse-manure pseudoscience that is just a waste of bandwith, I have the wit and the background to PROPERLY search for citations from REPUTABLE medical authorities (that are not 23-24 years out of date).
During the Supreme Court hearing on the DOMA case last year (Windsor) a number of medical associations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Edie Windsor's WINNING case. In the first part of that brief these eminent bodies stated:
Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage-cases.pdf
Do read the brief, it cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of LGBT couples and their civil rights to enter marriage and form families, just as their heterosexual brothers and sisters do.
Furthermore the American Foundation for Equal Rights has an excellent resources page with links which cites medical associations which include the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The page is mostly focused on debunking the myth that sexual orientation can be changed, but includes this statement:
American Psychiatric Association:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation… the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation…”
http://www.afer.org/our-work/resources/fundamental-attribute/
Dr Khan, you said that you do not wish that homosexuals be imprisoned or killed for their sexuality but by posting such an inflammatory question in the name of religion you are 'validating' the anti-gay rhetoric which feeds anti-gay violence. So yes,you are homophobic.
And as for Alastair - for pity's sake, please do some PROPER research... and don't forget to take your meds!
Original post by Alistair Mac Tir
INCORRECT. I don't even have a quote which says that those people claim homosexuality is a pathology. I am taking facts and making conclusions myself unlike YOU and your simpleton FLOCK LOGIC.
Flock logic? Is that a thing? I find that conspiracy theorists are usually quick to accuse others of being "sheeple". I don't find your conspiracy logic persuasive. In fact, I find it banal.
I'm phobic and intolerant? Do you think schizophrenics are pathological? If yes then you are a 'szchizophrenic-phobic' and 'intolerant'.
Do you think schizophrenics are pathological? If yes then you are a 'szchizophrenic-phobic' and 'intolerant'. What on earth are you babbling on about? Do you even know?
You have no idea what you're talking about you cultural marxist.
Oh wow, I'm quaking in me boots. Cultural marxist? You really told me.
Oh, more Russophobia.
I thought you said phobias aren't a bad thing?
The Anglosphere is an equally violent and corrupt place where poverty is rife and human rights are not respected and that has bombed dozens of countries multiple times on phony pretexts during modern history and killed millions of innocent people, but of course you are blind because of your racism and hate.
You seem to be getting quite upset because you have no way to gainsay the fact that life for most in the former USSR is short, nasty and brutish, that there is no freedom of speech or democracy, that conditions are primitive and violent.
You seem unable to detach your primitive, nationalistic fervour from an objective view of just how bad it is to live in a mafia state like Russia. And it is entirely consistent that in a backward, violent mafia state, many people will hold intolerant, homophobic views. You can't get away from that fundamental fact.
Intolerance is to be expected from such a backward place that has no respect for foreign cultures and civilizations.
Which is why people from all over the world, Russia and the Middle East included, are desperate to live here?
You're just talking, but talking nothing.
Talking nothing? That's not gramatically correct. You might say, "Saying nothing" or "Talking about nothing". But "talking nothing" is not right.
Original post by joey11223
It isn't a paraphilia...hmm..,.,why? The word in itself is not a negative despite many seeming to feel it is a pejorative... Just seems weird how things are arbitrarily classified.
If you're accepting the existence of the classification system at all, then presumably you accept the current classifications as they exist unless you have a serious hypothesis, backed by evidence, as to why we should overturn it?
Anyhow, it seems quite obvious why one is a paraphilia and one is not. Homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality. A normal and natural variation of human sexuality is not a "kink". Furthermore, all the serious academic literature suggests that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from paraphilias.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised
Flock logic? Is that a thing? I find that conspiracy theorists are usually quick to accuse others of being "sheeple". I don't find your conspiracy logic persuasive. In fact, I find it banal.
What on earth are you babbling on about? Do you even know?
What on earth are you babbling on about? Do you even know?
You can only keep tagging every opinion you don't like a conspiracy theory. It's so comfortable to stay within the borders of an argument of authority isn't it, you don't need to tense your brain. Just say "99% thinks that", you don't even have to make a single argument, and those who argue otherwise are conspiracy theorists.
Original post by MostUncivilised
You seem to be getting quite upset because you have no way to gainsay the fact that life for most in the former USSR is short, nasty and brutish, that there is no freedom of speech or democracy, that conditions are primitive and violent.
You seem unable to detach your primitive, nationalistic fervour from an objective view of just how bad it is to live in a mafia state like Russia. And it is entirely consistent that in a backward, violent mafia state, many people will hold intolerant, homophobic views. You can't get away from that fundamental fact.
Which is why people from all over the world, Russia and the Middle East included, are desperate to live here?
You seem to be getting quite upset because you have no way to gainsay the fact that life for most in the former USSR is short, nasty and brutish, that there is no freedom of speech or democracy, that conditions are primitive and violent.
You seem unable to detach your primitive, nationalistic fervour from an objective view of just how bad it is to live in a mafia state like Russia. And it is entirely consistent that in a backward, violent mafia state, many people will hold intolerant, homophobic views. You can't get away from that fundamental fact.
Which is why people from all over the world, Russia and the Middle East included, are desperate to live here?
You seem so hateful and upset that you have to digress and project your phobias towards a country you don't like on a student forum using such primitive and intolerant political cliches. Oh, so you also hate middle-eastern people, you racist. And this person tries to teach about tolerance and moral superiority, cultural marxist.
Original post by Helen_in_Ireland
To 'Dr' Khan and Alastair Mac Tir:
I am not a medical authority nor am I a member of the LGBT community. I am however educated enough and humble enough not to spout outlandish and virulantly homophobic garbage under the pretense of 'science'.
Instead of making up the rambling, ambiguous horse-manure pseudoscience that is just a waste of bandwith, I have the wit and the background to PROPERLY search for citations from REPUTABLE medical authorities (that are not 23-24 years out of date).
During the Supreme Court hearing on the DOMA case last year (Windsor) a number of medical associations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Edie Windsor's WINNING case. In the first part of that brief these eminent bodies stated:
Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage-cases.pdf
Do read the brief, it cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of LGBT couples and their civil rights to enter marriage and form families, just as their heterosexual brothers and sisters do.
Furthermore the American Foundation for Equal Rights has an excellent resources page with links which cites medical associations which include the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The page is mostly focused on debunking the myth that sexual orientation can be changed, but includes this statement:
American Psychiatric Association:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation… the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation…”
http://www.afer.org/our-work/resources/fundamental-attribute/
Dr Khan, you said that you do not wish that homosexuals be imprisoned or killed for their sexuality but by posting such an inflammatory question in the name of religion you are 'validating' the anti-gay rhetoric which feeds anti-gay violence. So yes,you are homophobic.
And as for Alastair - for pity's sake, please do some PROPER research... and don't forget to take your meds!
I am not a medical authority nor am I a member of the LGBT community. I am however educated enough and humble enough not to spout outlandish and virulantly homophobic garbage under the pretense of 'science'.
Instead of making up the rambling, ambiguous horse-manure pseudoscience that is just a waste of bandwith, I have the wit and the background to PROPERLY search for citations from REPUTABLE medical authorities (that are not 23-24 years out of date).
During the Supreme Court hearing on the DOMA case last year (Windsor) a number of medical associations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Edie Windsor's WINNING case. In the first part of that brief these eminent bodies stated:
Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage-cases.pdf
Do read the brief, it cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of LGBT couples and their civil rights to enter marriage and form families, just as their heterosexual brothers and sisters do.
Furthermore the American Foundation for Equal Rights has an excellent resources page with links which cites medical associations which include the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The page is mostly focused on debunking the myth that sexual orientation can be changed, but includes this statement:
American Psychiatric Association:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation… the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation…”
http://www.afer.org/our-work/resources/fundamental-attribute/
Dr Khan, you said that you do not wish that homosexuals be imprisoned or killed for their sexuality but by posting such an inflammatory question in the name of religion you are 'validating' the anti-gay rhetoric which feeds anti-gay violence. So yes,you are homophobic.
And as for Alastair - for pity's sake, please do some PROPER research... and don't forget to take your meds!
Who said I agree with Doctor Khan that you put me in one jar with him? I completely disagree with many things he says. Did you even read what I wrote? How are you so phobic and intolerant towards my post? Can you even relay my thesis and my point? This is completely undemocratic and disrespectful of human rights. You are repressing my opinion. Dictatorship of culture and repression of multipolarism.
I have to do research? You didn't even read my posts, let alone refute my argument. You don't even know what's the point I'm making. Go away mate.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Alistair Mac Tir
Just say "99% thinks that", you don't even have to make a single argument, and those who argue otherwise are conspiracy theorists.
Just because the majority isn't always right, that doesn't mean that if a view is held by the majority it is wrong. That seems like a fairly simple, logical concept. Do you grasp it?
You seem so hateful and upset that you have to digress and project your phobias towards a country you don't like on a student forum using such primitive and intolerant political cliches.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It's nice to see you picking up the language I was using when you realised the language you were using was not getting you anywhere.
It doesn't change the fact that the former USSR is a corrupt, violent place where human rights are not respected and life expectancies are short. At the fundament, you cannot deny that and deep down you know it's true; you know that the former USSR is a complete mess.
In such circumstances, it is not unexpected that the people hold increasingly intolerant views against minorities such as gay people. You yourself have been swept up in that primitive demagoguery.
Oh, so you also hate middle-eastern people, you racist.
Yawn.
And this person tries to teach about tolerance and moral superiority, cultural marxist.
Is that really the best you have? Just repeatedly spluttering "cultural marxist"? You seem to be getting all butthurt over obvious statements about the state of development of the former USSR. Why can't you accept obvious statements of truth and common sense?
Original post by MostUncivilised
Just because the majority isn't always right, that doesn't mean that if a view is held by the majority it is wrong. That seems like a fairly simple, logical concept. Do you grasp it?
You are the only one proposing such an idiotic thesis. Just because a majority holds a view doesn't mean it's either right or wrong. Grasp it?
Original post by MostUncivilised
It doesn't change the fact that the former USSR is a corrupt, violent place where human rights are not respected and life expectancies are short. At the fundament, you cannot deny that and deep down you know it's true; you know that the former USSR is a complete mess.
It doesn't change the fact that the former USSR is a corrupt, violent place where human rights are not respected and life expectancies are short. At the fundament, you cannot deny that and deep down you know it's true; you know that the former USSR is a complete mess.
It doesn't change the fact that the Anglosphere is equally a corrupt, violent place where human rights are not respected and life expectancies are shorter than in Japan. At the base, you cannot deny that and deep down you know it's true.
Original post by MostUncivilised
In such circumstances, it is not unexpected that the people hold increasingly intolerant views against minorities such as gay people. You yourself have been swept up in that primitive demagoguery.
Is that really the best you have? Just repeatedly spluttering "cultural marxist"? You seem to be getting all butthurt over obvious statements about the state of development of the former USSR. Why can't you accept obvious statements of truth and common sense?
In such circumstances, it is not unexpected that the people hold increasingly intolerant views against minorities such as gay people. You yourself have been swept up in that primitive demagoguery.
Is that really the best you have? Just repeatedly spluttering "cultural marxist"? You seem to be getting all butthurt over obvious statements about the state of development of the former USSR. Why can't you accept obvious statements of truth and common sense?
Oh, a russophobe and racist who's digressing and repeatedly spluttering cultural marxist and intolerrant cliches because he can't construct a single relevant argument on topic is telling me about primitive demogoguery and being butthurt, YAWN.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised
Anyhow, it seems quite obvious why one is a paraphilia and one is not. Homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality. A normal and natural variation of human sexuality is not a "kink". Furthermore, all the serious academic literature suggests that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from paraphilias.
Anyhow, it seems quite obvious why one is a paraphilia and one is not. Homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality. A normal and natural variation of human sexuality is not a "kink". Furthermore, all the serious academic literature suggests that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from paraphilias.
It doesn't seem quite obvious to me. Why is ephebophilia a paraphilia and homosexuality not? I get attraction to objects being a paraphilia, or dressing in latex etc, but some, such as ephebophilia, seem like a natural variation. I am attracted to females, that is considered the standard of normality I assume, lets say I strongly prefer girls in their late teens, I would argue this isn't much of a variation on that normality, or at least no more so different than me being attracted to males would be.
and although I don't want to compare them morally, what makes homosexuality distinct from all else to the extent it gets its own category, that paedophilia say, hasn't got?
...though really this is semantics I suppose...and not exactly relevant to the thread.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Alistair Mac Tir
You are the only one proposing such an idiotic thesis.
So you think it's idiotic to say that, just because the majority holds a view doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong?
It doesn't change the fact that the Anglosphere is equally a corrupt, violent place where human rights are not respected and life expectancies are shorter than in Japan.
But considerably longer than former USSR
And your claim that human rights are not respected in countries like Britain and Australia is pretty desperate. You know that Russia is a dump compared to the West for the average citizen. You don't want to admit it, and you're getting upset and butthurt over it.
Oh, a russophobe and racist who's digressing and repeatedly spluttering cultural marxist and intolerrant cliches because he can't construct a single relevant argument on topic is telling me about primitive demogoguery and being butthurt, YAWN.
Nice to see you picked up the word yawn from me as well. I understand that you're less proficient with the English language, so I'll take it more as a kind of imitation-based flattery than anything else.
If "cultural marxist" is the best you have, then I've already won.
Original post by MostUncivilised
So you think it's idiotic to say that, just because the majority holds a view doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong?
Oh, seems you can't read or comprehend very well.. pretty understandable given you don't tense your brain often and prefer arguments of authority.
Original post by MostUncivilised
But considerably longer than former USSR
And your claim that human rights are not respected in countries like Britain and Australia is pretty desperate. You know that Russia is a dump compared to the West for the average citizen. You don't want to admit it, and you're getting upset and butthurt over it.
Nice to see you picked up the word yawn from me as well. I understand that you're less proficient with the English language, so I'll take it more as a kind of imitation-based flattery than anything else.
If "cultural marxist" is the best you have, then I've already won.
But considerably longer than former USSR
And your claim that human rights are not respected in countries like Britain and Australia is pretty desperate. You know that Russia is a dump compared to the West for the average citizen. You don't want to admit it, and you're getting upset and butthurt over it.
Nice to see you picked up the word yawn from me as well. I understand that you're less proficient with the English language, so I'll take it more as a kind of imitation-based flattery than anything else.
If "cultural marxist" is the best you have, then I've already won.
You obviously can't see this forum is not the right place to project your hate, racism, and intolerance towards other civilizations. I know you're jealous but we're having a discussion here and YOU'RE so hateful and butthurt you come here and spit some russophobic nonsequitur to justify your embarassing inability to tense your brain.
You won? Who's winning here? You're a little child so desperate to 'win' something? Go play ball instead and leave the discussion to the more mature and capable
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Alistair Mac Tir
Oh, seems you can't read well
No, that's exactly what you said. You can't hide it now, it's saved for posterity.
Also a bit laughable being accused of incomprehension by you, the person who said "talking nothing".
You obviously can't see this forum is not the right place to project your hate, racism, and intolerance towards other civilizations.
You obviously can't see this forum is not the right place to project your hate, bigotry and intolerance towards gay people.
I know you're jealous but we're having a discussion here and YOU'RE so hateful and butthurt you come here and spit some russophobic nonsequitur to justify your embarassing inability to tense your brain.
Tense my brain?
What is that? Tense your brain?You won? Who's winning here? You're a little child so desperate to 'win' something? Go play ball instead and leave the discussion to the more mature and capable
I'm not desperate to win, I did win. Statement of fact. I tied you in knots over your defence of the Russian mafia state, and it made you look ridiculous.
Game, set and match, dear boy.
Original post by Alistair Mac Tir
You HAVE ignored this and you KEEP ignoring. NO, your reproductive system serves one ultimate function what it's named after - REPRODUCTION. If you can't name any other function, then you're just running in circles. Please name another function, obviously you can't.
How? Are you kidding me? If there were several men and women on an island and they were all homosexual, they would all just die out and human life in this region would disappear because their brain is not functioning the way that should to ensure they would not go extinct. THAT'S harm to survival. Jeez, common sense.
How? Are you kidding me? If there were several men and women on an island and they were all homosexual, they would all just die out and human life in this region would disappear because their brain is not functioning the way that should to ensure they would not go extinct. THAT'S harm to survival. Jeez, common sense.
I repeat, I have not ignored this. You have yet to coherently and convincingly explain how not having children is harmful. I haven't said that reproduction is not a function, nor that it cannot be. However I have also said that it is not the only function. As I've said, sex has and does have a social function in addition to just the function of creating pleasure. Why the pleasure is there does not change that pleasure is a possible, and factual, function of sex.
Re the bold: No. Please try again. Reproducing does not increase your personal chance of survival. Actually if anything it reduces your chances of survival, particularly if we assume that you have a responsibility to care for the newborn. You may have created a possibility for further life, but as we have already discussed you have no obligation to do so, and to not do so does not harm anyone. You have a very confused understanding of 'harm'.
If a person never uses their penis or vagina to have sex because they are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex to at least be incentivized to do so, and if it is established that this is happening because their brain or some other part or factor affecting the systems which affect such behavior has developed incorrectly or is present, then YES, they HAVE a pathology.
Once again this does not follow. Having an incentive or not does not change pathology. Pathology is not merely determined by brain structure. It is only pathological if the behavior is a disease or dysfunction. Which you have not shown to be the case. You keep saying that they are not reproducing but that does not matter. As we have said, and agreed, sex without reproduction is not a harm. If it is, then it is always a harm and it is pathological to have any sexual relations that do not result in reproduction or at least to be attempting to do so.
BUT, having an incentive makes you MORE LIKELY to insert your penis into the vagina. It doesn't 100% GUARANTEE you will do so no matter what. It makes inserting your penis into a vagina PREFERNTIAL, and it doesn't mean a very desperate person with 'sperm intoxication' won't shove his penis into a tree hollow to satisfy his urge. That's why people jack off when they don't have a woman. Women who use vibrators are SIMULATING the insertion of a PENIS. How could you not get such common sense is beyond me. Not to mention heterosexual men who use sex toys further fantasize and imagine they're putting their penis into a woman's vagina. When people jack off, they use things like porn to help them. Homosexuals, because of the incorrect development of their brain, find sex with MEN preferential, and are not likely at all to have sex with a woman to fulfil their reproductive function, hence they are pathological. This again shows you're not friggin reading anything I'm writing and you're just running in circles.
What nonsense. Having an incentive is irrelevant. The act is either harmful or not. I will ask you directly: Is non-reproductive sex harmful? Context is not relevant. Is it harmful to not reproduce? Yes or no please. If yes, then it follows that regardless of your incentive if you are not engaging in vaginal sex then you are 'harming' yourself. As such it is pathological because whatever the reason is it is internal (unless vaginal sex is not an option). Actually even in cases where vaginal sex is not an option to have other types of sex is a waste and thereby is still harmful and so would qualify as pathological because the 'organism' can not have sex (particularly if we are referring to humans who are in fact able to control their urges mostly).
If the answer is no well then its not harmful and cannot be pathological. The reason is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant when discussing whether or not there is a problem for reproduction is if people are capable of reproduction. As history, biology, and common sense have shown homosexuals have and can still reproduce. Whether they have the 'incentive' does not matter. They are not harming anyone when they do not reproduce. It is biologically, ethically, evolutionarily, and medically, the same as a person who only engages in oral sex with someone of the opposite sex. It is the same as someone who is abstinent their entire life. Regardless of the reason these are not harmful or diseased acts as they are not harmful and cannot therefore be pathological. Or are you going to claim that all of the above are? Again, if you do, then you have to accept that merely engaging in anal, oral, or not engaging in sex at all in any instance is harmful and would therefore be dysfunctional and thereby also pathological.
JEEEZ, some may not do anal, some like shoving bottles in their anus, it's not the point. They need never do Anal but they DO. Yes it's true, you can't deny that.
http://www.cdc.gov/STDConference/2000/media/STDGay2000.htm
http://std.about.com/od/glbtcommunity/a/Why-Do-Gay-Men-Have-An-Increased-Risk-Of-Hiv.htm
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php
"The data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php#MecpbPPqqhrTfhac.99"
No they're not likely to be pathological, their interested in the FEMALE holes, and eventually those who start off with the anus will try the vagina. You're not even reading what I'm writing.
Further to show you the statistical irrelevance of your point and so you won't go all like "but tHis is aN aSsumPtiooon!":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780056/
"It is estimated that ~2% of adult males in the United States regularly practice anal receptive intercourse."
http://www.cdc.gov/STDConference/2000/media/STDGay2000.htm
http://std.about.com/od/glbtcommunity/a/Why-Do-Gay-Men-Have-An-Increased-Risk-Of-Hiv.htm
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php
"The data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php#MecpbPPqqhrTfhac.99"
No they're not likely to be pathological, their interested in the FEMALE holes, and eventually those who start off with the anus will try the vagina. You're not even reading what I'm writing.
Further to show you the statistical irrelevance of your point and so you won't go all like "but tHis is aN aSsumPtiooon!":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780056/
"It is estimated that ~2% of adult males in the United States regularly practice anal receptive intercourse."
You really need to go learn basic critical thinking again. Yes, homosexuals are in fact more likely to contract such diseases. However when you actually look into it further, it has nothing to do with the fact that the two partners are male. It has to do with the sex they had. Your argument is against anal sex. And can be, and is, experienced by anyone who engages in anal sex.
You also falsely conflate anal sex with being gay. As I said, being gay does not mean you will engage in anal sex or any kind of anal play. Do you know what the most popular form of sex is between same sex partners? Mutual masturbation. Did you know that the risk of transmitting HIV and other STI's is drastically reduced when anal sex is taken out of the picture? So once again your argument here says nothing about homosexuality but merely about anal sex.
Oh, so blood pumping machines mitigate the threat of heart disease and makes heart disease no longer pathological, so ingenius right.
Or are you now going to play with the concept of being available to 'most people', and 'depending on how many people have access to it' determine whether we can take into account that people are born without condom, lol, ingenius right
Or are you now going to play with the concept of being available to 'most people', and 'depending on how many people have access to it' determine whether we can take into account that people are born without condom, lol, ingenius right
Again you seem unable to understand...A condom is different from a 'blood pumping machine' because it is preventative. I also did not say that the condom affected the 'pathological status' I merely pointed out that it mitigates the risk and attainment of 'explicit harm'. Similar to how taking vitamins reduces risk and attainment of actual harms. Really this is not difficult to grasp.
"the lining to rip and so there is a higher likelihood of STI transmission"
Uhhh, I never said that can't happen and you're only compounding my point. Anal Expert, Prooflink to refute my point that you can pick up a urinary tract infection from fecal matter entering your penis please??? You never back your stuff up yet you pose yourself from the position of superiority and claim it is me who's ignorant when you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not even the main point, speak about picking straws.
Uhhh, I never said that can't happen and you're only compounding my point. Anal Expert, Prooflink to refute my point that you can pick up a urinary tract infection from fecal matter entering your penis please??? You never back your stuff up yet you pose yourself from the position of superiority and claim it is me who's ignorant when you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not even the main point, speak about picking straws.
I didn't say anything about what you said, other than you did not understand why anal sex is considered so risky. As I said it is not because of the fecal matter. Is it possible to get an infection from such? Yes, I didn't deny that but that is rare and unlikely. It is more likely to transmit fluids and have a rip in the lining of the anus which is why its considered so risky.
To further address your urinary tract infection - the same risk applies when having vaginal sex so really that a moot point.
No you didn't stop lying Anal Expert. I never said you're obliged or forced to reproduce, you're just arrogantly attributing absurd stuff to me that I didn't say.
Again, if it harmful to not reproduce then then in fact you are obliged (unless the opportunity never arises). Why? Because otherwise whatever your reasoning is pathological either psychologically or biologically because you have not fulfilled your function of reproduction, which according to your argument really would be the basis of all traits and characteristics.
Ps - your name calling is rather telling of your cognitive abilities. If you are resorting to name calling it is apparent you are not able to keep up.
You're not reading at all Anal Expert.
"So if anyone wants oral sex or anal sex their system is 'incorrect'."
Unless you learn to read, it would continue being so in your imagination. Go back to the post where I define what is normal. This explanation is not something you even attempt to refute or challenge. The only thing you do is say 'Alpha is Beta, and I will ignore Delta, which defines Alpha, so that I can make an empty counterargument and have something to reply' You're just running in circles, what's the point, you want me to get frustrated maybe that's your strategy, but this conversation is fun and I'm not planning to leave this discussion so you may want to change these tactics. Go back and read what I wrote about normality and if you don't make explicit reference to this definition and continue to build counterarguments upon your imagination then only the maker can have mercy upon your soul.
"So if anyone wants oral sex or anal sex their system is 'incorrect'."
Unless you learn to read, it would continue being so in your imagination. Go back to the post where I define what is normal. This explanation is not something you even attempt to refute or challenge. The only thing you do is say 'Alpha is Beta, and I will ignore Delta, which defines Alpha, so that I can make an empty counterargument and have something to reply' You're just running in circles, what's the point, you want me to get frustrated maybe that's your strategy, but this conversation is fun and I'm not planning to leave this discussion so you may want to change these tactics. Go back and read what I wrote about normality and if you don't make explicit reference to this definition and continue to build counterarguments upon your imagination then only the maker can have mercy upon your soul.
You're definition of normal relies on a majority having a characteristic. In this case though you are applying it to the idea that most people have (potentially) reproductive goals/sex and anyone who doesn't must be pathological because it is abnormal and therefore dysfunctional. Hardly objective.
"This does not change the actual fact that sex can in fact be done solely for pleasure"
I never said it does, Anal Expert, are you again attributing stuff to me that I didn't say? Unless you're intelligent enough to have such a complex intention, it in itself is done solely for pleasure. Mice don't go all like 'hmmm, it's time to make kids!'. You have sex and as a result produce children because of the stimuli that incentivize you to do that. Unless you're intelligent enough or have the knowledge from experience, you don't even consciously think that this will result in children. That's why the nervous and indocrine systems have the relevant functions and dimorphisms to makes sure you are likely to put your penis somewhere and more likely to put that penis into a hole that will lead to the balls and sperm they produce performing their function of fertilizing the egg.
I never said it does, Anal Expert, are you again attributing stuff to me that I didn't say? Unless you're intelligent enough to have such a complex intention, it in itself is done solely for pleasure. Mice don't go all like 'hmmm, it's time to make kids!'. You have sex and as a result produce children because of the stimuli that incentivize you to do that. Unless you're intelligent enough or have the knowledge from experience, you don't even consciously think that this will result in children. That's why the nervous and indocrine systems have the relevant functions and dimorphisms to makes sure you are likely to put your penis somewhere and more likely to put that penis into a hole that will lead to the balls and sperm they produce performing their function of fertilizing the egg.
1. You have merely proven my point. If sex, particularly for humans who are in fact capable of complex intention, can have sex for purely pleasure then reproduction is not the only possible function. Nor is it a relevant function in all instances of sex. Therefore sex which is not done for reproduction is not against its function. You have defeated your own argument with this admission.
2. Its interesting how you place very specific functions on things like testes and sperm but not on things like a hand. The hand as you say has the function of interacting with the environment. Why do you say this? Because there are any number of things it can interact with. Similarly sperm need not only interact with an egg. In fact most sperm do not. So what function do they all really serve other than interaction with the environment? Lol
Homsexuals, on the other hand, have these systems developed incorrectly, and they prefer MEN, and are far less likely to to fulfil the function and purpose of their reproductive system. This is HARM to survival, because if everyone had such a pathology within a species, they would most likely go EXTINCT, it's irrefutable common sense.
Homosexuals still derive pleasure from sex. Homosexuals, are still capable of opposite-sex relations. Therefore they have not gone against the systems at play. Their likelihood of fulfilling the purpose is not relevant. As we have already discussed they need not fulfill it. They need not even attempt to. Particularly in the case of humans where sex can, and often is, expressly for merely pleasure and not reproduction.
Your speculation about my speculation is the biggest speculation based on literally nothing. You don't even back any of the stuff you write up.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780056/
"It is estimated that ~2% of adult males in the United States regularly practice anal receptive intercourse."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780056/
"It is estimated that ~2% of adult males in the United States regularly practice anal receptive intercourse."
1. Where am I speculating? I am responding to what you said. I didn't make any jumps in logic.
2. That did not address any of what I said about anal or oral sex in regards to reproduction
3. It doesn't matter if they are the recievor. If they engage in anal it is against the 'function' of sex (reproduction) as such sexual practices are incapable of producing offspring. Everything in my post was true.
4. Its funny you use that statistic because that is not only for heterosexuals. That is estimated of an entire population of males.
EXACTLY. Just because the circumstances weren't there like no woman likes Alpha's not attractive to them face and empty wallet, but the stimuli was, like he wanted to have sex with a woman, doesn't mean it is a pathology because all the systems were working and the lack of success was circumstantial.. I'm beginning to understand why you're attributing stuff to me I didn't say while genuinly believing that that's what I said.
According to your theory if you do not try you have a pathology. Why? Because your system ought cause you to do so when the stimuli is present. So according to you all males should attempt to have sex with every female they see. We could maybe limit this to females that are of child bearing age, but even then according to your theory it is wrong and agains the function of the brain, and endocrine, and other systems, to not attempt/want to have sex with them. Then why are you even replying if it's 'not your job' to back your stuff up. It makes you, sorry, look like an idiot. It's not your job to reply here either.
Because it takes up time and you clearly don't understand. I am trying to lead you to the correct answers but you seem unwilling to even try. Ah well.
'I already went back to 101 and guided you through the steps that define pathological disease. While YOU'RE at it you should reread my explanations into how logic, biology, evolution, and all that fun stuff works too.'
I can also ramble like you, but my version of the paragraph at least has something that backs it up. But you are just talking, but talking nothing just to reply something.
I can also ramble like you, but my version of the paragraph at least has something that backs it up. But you are just talking, but talking nothing just to reply something.
As I said in response to that post, it only proved my point that you do not understand.
Exactly, you have a pathology, you're not normal, get over it. Doesn't mean gays must be imprisoned or their rights limited. I don't hate you for this way you were born.
Original post by MostUncivilised
By the way, you might pay close attention to RandZul'Zorander's post above. He just did the intellectual equivalent of bitchslapping you.
By the way, you might pay close attention to RandZul'Zorander's post above. He just did the intellectual equivalent of bitchslapping you.
Haha thanks
You're exchange has been particularly amusing. You have a better tolerance for his...attitude than I do.Original post by Helen_in_Ireland
To 'Dr' Khan and Alastair Mac Tir:
I am not a medical authority nor am I a member of the LGBT community. I am however educated enough and humble enough not to spout outlandish and virulantly homophobic garbage under the pretense of 'science'.
Instead of making up the rambling, ambiguous horse-manure pseudoscience that is just a waste of bandwith, I have the wit and the background to PROPERLY search for citations from REPUTABLE medical authorities (that are not 23-24 years out of date).
During the Supreme Court hearing on the DOMA case last year (Windsor) a number of medical associations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Edie Windsor's WINNING case. In the first part of that brief these eminent bodies stated:
Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage-cases.pdf
Do read the brief, it cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of LGBT couples and their civil rights to enter marriage and form families, just as their heterosexual brothers and sisters do.
Furthermore the American Foundation for Equal Rights has an excellent resources page with links which cites medical associations which include the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The page is mostly focused on debunking the myth that sexual orientation can be changed, but includes this statement:
American Psychiatric Association:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation… the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation…”
http://www.afer.org/our-work/resources/fundamental-attribute/
Dr Khan, you said that you do not wish that homosexuals be imprisoned or killed for their sexuality but by posting such an inflammatory question in the name of religion you are 'validating' the anti-gay rhetoric which feeds anti-gay violence. So yes,you are homophobic.
And as for Alastair - for pity's sake, please do some PROPER research... and don't forget to take your meds!
I am not a medical authority nor am I a member of the LGBT community. I am however educated enough and humble enough not to spout outlandish and virulantly homophobic garbage under the pretense of 'science'.
Instead of making up the rambling, ambiguous horse-manure pseudoscience that is just a waste of bandwith, I have the wit and the background to PROPERLY search for citations from REPUTABLE medical authorities (that are not 23-24 years out of date).
During the Supreme Court hearing on the DOMA case last year (Windsor) a number of medical associations including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Edie Windsor's WINNING case. In the first part of that brief these eminent bodies stated:
Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives.
Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage-cases.pdf
Do read the brief, it cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of LGBT couples and their civil rights to enter marriage and form families, just as their heterosexual brothers and sisters do.
Furthermore the American Foundation for Equal Rights has an excellent resources page with links which cites medical associations which include the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The page is mostly focused on debunking the myth that sexual orientation can be changed, but includes this statement:
American Psychiatric Association:
“The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation… the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation…”
http://www.afer.org/our-work/resources/fundamental-attribute/
Dr Khan, you said that you do not wish that homosexuals be imprisoned or killed for their sexuality but by posting such an inflammatory question in the name of religion you are 'validating' the anti-gay rhetoric which feeds anti-gay violence. So yes,you are homophobic.
And as for Alastair - for pity's sake, please do some PROPER research... and don't forget to take your meds!
so basically a giant appeal to authority
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Haha thanks You're exchange has been particularly amusing. You have a better tolerance for his...attitude than I do.
You're exchange has been particularly amusing. You have a better tolerance for his...attitude than I do.No probs
I knew mentioning Russia and its problems would bring out the whiney 5-year old that lurks beneath the surface.Now he's crying about my bigotry and intolerance, oh the irony.
Original post by I am not finite
so basically a giant appeal to authority
So citing an authority is always wrong?
Original post by I am not finite
so basically a giant appeal to authority
Appeals to authority are not always fallacious.
Original post by MostUncivilised
So citing an authority is always wrong?
Never said that, just pointing out the use of authority to suppress discussion.
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 14 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 19 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 19 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
