The Battle Against the A.P.A. Resolution

[Kagom]

So, 2 +2 might equal 5?

I understand where he's coming from. Anything that cannot be proven as absolute truth is merely a subjective truth. Math, Science, and Linguistics (just to throw something in there) are absolute truth because we can look at these and see how something is done and we can see that it is truth because it can be shown and proven. The existence of God is something that isn't an absolute truth. It's a subjective truth merely on the basis we can't prove God exists. Before you decide to jump me, I believe there is a god.

 

[Nienna]

I understand where he's coming from. Anything that cannot be proven as absolute truth is merely a subjective truth. Math, Science, and Linguistics (just to throw something in there) are absolute truth because we can look at these and see how something is done and we can see that it is truth because it can be shown and proven. The existence of God is something that isn't an absolute truth. It's a subjective truth merely on the basis we can't prove God exists. Before you decide to jump me, I believe there is a god.

Even equations have a philosophical basis. Numbers symbolize the concept of "quantity"; they mean nothing in themselves. You can't prove that "5" exists; there is only a sociological agreement that "5" will represent this set amount.

You will always run into truth. "Facts are stubborn things."

 

[alien21010]

So you're saying that it's ABSOLUTELY TRUE that there is no absolute truth?

No, thats just my take on it.

However, everything in this world is based on a series of assumptions. Everyday we assume that our senses are relaying the information in the world back to us in a manner that is consistent with the reality of the world around us. We have nothing to base this on except for good faith.

2+2 could potentially equal 5. Yet again, we are assuming that our numerical and mathematical system are consistent with the laws of the universe (all evidence points towards this being the case).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

2+2 could potentially equal 5. Yet again, we are assuming that our numerical and mathematical system are consistent with the laws of the universe (all evidence points towards this being the case).

Do you think this sounds smart?

 

[Nienna]

No, thats just my take on it.

However, everything in this world is based on a series of assumptions. Everyday we assume that our senses are relaying the information in the world back to us in a manner that is consistent with the reality of the world around us. We have nothing to base this on except for good faith.

2+2 could potentially equal 5. Yet again, we are assuming that our numerical and mathematical system are consistent with the laws of the universe (all evidence points towards this being the case).

Humans do not determine truth. There is an objective standard of reality outside the minds of all humans.

 

[Mariner]

are no absolute truths. In theory, theorems are deduced from axioms. Change the axioms, and you create new truths. But it's not as easy to "prove" a proof as one might think--almost every proof involves aspects of intuition deeply hidden in its logical structure.

As an example of changing the axioms: people tried for centuries to "prove" that two parallel lines could never meet. They could never prove it based on Euclid's other axioms. Finally, in the 19th century, Riemann and others recognized that this was an optional belief. You can have a consistent geometry in which they never meet (e.g. a flat Euclidean plane) or you can have any of many consistent geometries in which they do (e.g. on the surface of the spherical earth).

You can make a consistent math where 2 + 2 = 5 if you want, a modular math or a different-base math.

Beyond all of that, any axiomatic system must permit truths that can't be proved within it (this is Godel's famous theorem). Truth is a hard concept to pin down, even in math.

As for gay people not being generative or aiming towards the future, that's baloney. One, gay couples can and do adopt and raise children (I know three gay couples who have adopted children from orphanages abroad--that's not future oriented?) Two, gay people can and do contribute vastly to society, and hence to all of our future, all the time. To assume that being generative means having children is an insult to single, childless people of any orientation. Three, even if generativity means only having children, many straight couples can be profoundly un-generative by having children whom they abuse or neglect.

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

As for gay people not being generative or aiming towards the future, that's baloney.

Before we accept this blanket assessment, let's re-examine what Dr. Stern actually said:

"MS: It has been my observation that individuals have distinct urgencies to become generative. To be generative is to reach out to the future, whether it be with one's emerging capacities, or with the gift of one's children. Through generativity, a man moves beyond the mental deformation of self-absorption, in which he is his own infant and pet. The homosexual often fears otherness, and in this fear, may beckon to an idealized image of himself--"Be me, and I'll be you." The world becomes an eternal playground, and growth is stymied."

By "generativity", he obviously means having reached the stage of human growth where one can accept the concept of "otherness". Homosexuality is, then, a symptom of arrested development - an inability or unwillingness to see beyond the self. Of course, homosexuals find increasing encouragement for this social retardation through our hedonistic culture, as do the young mothers who abort their children because they're "not ready". The self is all; growth is - most assuredly - stymied.

One, gay couples can and do adopt and raise children (I know three gay couples who have adopted children from orphanages abroad--that's not future oriented?)

You're inconsistent. The social and economic circumstances from which you draw your examples change, according to the point you're trying to advance. All the homosexuals you cite are professionally successful, economically comfortable, and - therefore - apparently well-adjusted. Yet, when the topic turns to abortion, the players are always downtrodden - the scenario always horrible - the ending always gruesome (Mildred X. was forced by society to actually EAT a coat hanger in 1927; is this what you pro-lifers are advocating?). It makes your arguments appear loaded.

Two, gay people can and do contribute vastly to society, and hence to all of our future, all the time.

Would that it were possible to stack their contributions against the AIDS epidemic, 20-40% of all child molestations, and homosexuality's part in the destruction of our culture. I bet that would be a telling statistic.

To assume that being generative means having children is an insult to single, childless people of any orientation.

Well, thank God he didn't actually SAY that, then.

Three, even if generativity means only having children...

See above.

...many straight couples can be profoundly un-generative by having children whom they abuse or neglect.

Yeah - human beings can do some pretty horrible things - whether that truth advances your particular views or not.

 

[Mariner]

use generativity in a more nuanced way. The usual meaning of the word is having children. Erik Eriksson (I think) expanded the meaning into being productive with one's life.

But he provides no evidence for his blanket claim that gay people often are self-absorbed and therefore less generative, nor does he explore non-generativity in non-gay people. Sure, some gay people are self-absorbed. So are some straight people.

As for the examples I choose, well, if he wants to make blanket claims about how gay people are, then all I need to do is provide counterexamples. If some gay people are not self-absorbed, and are generative, then his thesis means nothing. Instead of putting down gay people, we should instead be exploring what helps people be generative. Being routinely discriminated against most certainly does not.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

use generativity in a more nuanced way. .

nuanced = dishonest.

 

[musicman]

But he provides no evidence for his blanket claim that gay people often are self-absorbed and therefore less generative...

Well - yes, he does. This is a respected psychotherapist, bringing to the discussion his first-hand experience in treating homosexuals.

...nor does he explore non-generativity in non-gay people.

Not surprising, given that the topic at hand was homosexuality.

If some gay people are not self-absorbed, and are generative, then his thesis means nothing.

I believe his point is that homosexuality itself is a manifestation of self-obsession and non-generativity - or, more simply put - an inability to grow up, and look beyond the self. I think he makes an excellent case - and, I'll go him one better. I believe that same blindered attitude toward human growth is responsible for all the additional misery brought on by that most horrific of lies: "the sexual revolution".

Instead of putting down gay people...

Who's putting homosexuals down - Dr. Stern? He's trying to help them; they've ASKED for his help. And, he's doing so despite interference from the A.P.A. - whose principal occupations seem to be the twin goals of homosexualizing society, and seeing to it that as many abortions as possible take place. What a collection of gutless wonders; they bent over for the culture assassins twenty-five years ago. I marvel that the profession still boasts courageous men like Dr. Stern.

...we should instead be exploring what helps people be generative.

Well, some people are trying, Mariner. But, telling the truth in this world doesn't seem to garner too many awards for popularity.

...Being routinely discriminated against most certainly does not.

Perversion SHOULD be discriminated against. Homosexuality is sexual perversion. The fact that the A.P.A. has bowed before political pressure doesn't change the truth.

 

[Mariner]

the truth is? This therapist has his own beliefs, based on people who have come to see him. I have different beliefs, based on the gay people I know and am friends with. My bottom line is that if someone's doing something that doesn't hurt anyone else, and seems to make him/her happy, then who am I to question it? Notice that this does not apply to, say, sex with children or sex with animals, in which case there is a difference of power between the parties. Sex between two consenting adults seems to me their own business. Wasn't there something in the D of I about "pursuit of happiness?" How come conservatives give up this treasured principle when it comes to gay people's happiness?

Honestly, I don't know what to think of the idea of the APA condemning therapists who treat patients volunteering for this kind of therapy. It would seem that as long as the therapist isn't leading the patient, e.g. by saying "homosexuality is wrong," but is instead following the patient's own wishes, "doctor, help me with this feeling, I don't like it," then there shouldn't be an ethical issue there. So, even though I disagree with Stern's way of seeing homosexuality, I may agree with him on the APA issue. On the other hand, I can definitely see the APA condeming therapists who try to lead patients away from their homosexuality--that would be imposing the therapist's values on the patient, and wouldn't be appropriate.

Mariner.

RWA, I used the word "nuanced" because when I first read the piece, I didn't notice that Stern extended the meaning of "generative" beyond the usual meaning of bearing children, i.e. a more nuanced use of the word. Musicman pointed this out to me, and I accepted it.

 

[musicman]

[How can we decide what]the truth is?

We do just that, a thousand times a day. We decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, good and evil, prudent and foolhardy. Our conclusions might not reach the level of cosmic truth, but - really - what other option do we have? Paralysis by analysis - carried out to its logical consequence - would have one afraid to scratch his own ass; doesn't that itch have rights, too?

Wasn't there something in the D of I about "pursuit of happiness?" How come conservatives give up this treasured principle when it comes to gay people's happiness?

Simple. "Gay people's happiness" involves a behavior that is demonstrably dangerous to society. Moreover, the organized, political activist arm of homosexuality has proven that it places the legitimization of a dangerous, deviant lifestyle above any concern for the will of the people, or the public's safety.

Honestly, I don't know what to think of the idea of the APA condemning therapists who treat patients volunteering for this kind of therapy.

Well, I do. The APA is proving my point. To hell with the patient - to hell with his ultimate well-being - and to hell with society. Ideological correctness is job #1. The agenda comes first.

 

[Mariner]

behavior "demonstrably dangerous to society"?

Promiscuity--whether gay or straight--is demonstrably dangerous to society, but being in a gay marriage isn't. In fact, one could argue that when wider society accepts homosexual relationships as normal, gay people will no longer need to flee their home areas for the large cities, where AIDS was spread.

As for deciding the truth--yes, of course, we make moral decisions all day long--and some of them bear thinking long and hard about. I'm talking about analyzing our own feelings--including homopprobic feelings--and then making an ethical judgement. Mine is "live and let live." Yours obviously involves wanting to discriminate against gay people in many contexts because you judge their behavior "wrong." To me, there should be a very high threshold for making judgements of others' behaviors.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

behavior "demonstrably dangerous to society"?

Promiscuity--whether gay or straight--is demonstrably dangerous to society, but being in a gay marriage isn't. In fact, one could argue that when wider society accepts homosexual relationships as normal, gay people will no longer need to flee their home areas for the large cities, where AIDS was spread.

As for deciding the truth--yes, of course, we make moral decisions all day long--and some of them bear thinking long and hard about. I'm talking about analyzing our own feelings--including homopprobic feelings--and then making an ethical judgement. Mine is "live and let live." Yours obviously involves wanting to discriminate against gay people in many contexts because you judge their behavior "wrong." To me, there should be a very high threshold for making judgements of others' behaviors.

Mariner.

gay people are more promiscuous, whatever the reason. I've known many, and they love to talk about their anonymous glory hole sex. They think it's cool.

 

[Nienna]

behavior "demonstrably dangerous to society"?

Promiscuity--whether gay or straight--is demonstrably dangerous to society, but being in a gay marriage isn't. In fact, one could argue that when wider society accepts homosexual relationships as normal, gay people will no longer need to flee their home areas for the large cities, where AIDS was spread.

As for deciding the truth--yes, of course, we make moral decisions all day long--and some of them bear thinking long and hard about. I'm talking about analyzing our own feelings--including homopprobic feelings--and then making an ethical judgement. Mine is "live and let live." Yours obviously involves wanting to discriminate against gay people in many contexts because you judge their behavior "wrong." To me, there should be a very high threshold for making judgements of others' behaviors.

Mariner.

You are ignoring the example we have seen played out in other countries where gay marriage has been legalized. The number of ALL marriages declined. Perhaps a few gay people want to stay in committed, monogamous relationships. You can find anecdotal evidence for almost anything. But, in other countries where gay marriage has been granted, marriage in general and the traditional family have suffered. The trend in the gay community is unfettered sex.

 

[GotZoom]

behavior "demonstrably dangerous to society"?

Promiscuity--whether gay or straight--is demonstrably dangerous to society, but being in a gay marriage isn't. In fact, one could argue that when wider society accepts homosexual relationships as normal, gay people will no longer need to flee their home areas for the large cities, where AIDS was spread.

As for deciding the truth--yes, of course, we make moral decisions all day long--and some of them bear thinking long and hard about. I'm talking about analyzing our own feelings--including homopprobic feelings--and then making an ethical judgement. Mine is "live and let live." Yours obviously involves wanting to discriminate against gay people in many contexts because you judge their behavior "wrong." To me, there should be a very high threshold for making judgements of others' behaviors.

Mariner.

It sure does sound like you are blaming the spread of AIDS on homosexuality.

I agree.

 

[musicman]

]behavior "demonstrably dangerous to society"?

Well, let's see. First, there's the fact that - while homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 20-40% of all child molestations. This doesn't suggest something disturbing about the behavior to you?

How about the fact that the AIDS virus found its way into the human population via homosexuality - and spread like wildfire because of that behavior's attendant promiscuity?

Or - that when the medical community proposed the quite sane idea of quarantining the 4000 or so early cases, the politically powerful San Francisco homosexual community put a stop to it - judging a possible negative public perception of homosexuals more dangerous than a runaway epidemic?

Finally, how about the fact that the whole idea of "sex without consequences" has proven to be a vicious, murdering lie - thwarting personal growth, warping minds, breaking hearts, and leaving broken, disease-ravaged, and dead bodies in its wake? P.J. O' Rourke said it best: "The sexual revolution is over, and the microbes won".

In fact, one could argue that when wider society accepts homosexual relationships as normal, gay people will no longer need to flee their home areas for the large cities, where AIDS was spread.

One would lose. You and I have discussed this before. The country boy can't find acceptance at home for a behavior his country cousins consider unsafe, unclean, and unnatural. So, he moves to the city, where attitudes about such things are more relaxed. He then contracts the disease associated with aforementioned unsafe, unclean and unnatural behavior - and it's HIS COUNTRY COUSINS' FAULT??!! I say again - pathetic.

As for deciding the truth--yes, of course, we make moral decisions all day long--and some of them bear thinking long and hard about. I'm talking about analyzing our own feelings--including homopprobic feelings--and then making an ethical judgement. Mine is "live and let live."

Yeah - so is mine. But, in case you haven't noticed, that's not good enough for homosexual activists. Equality under the law won't do. They want enforced codification - legitimacy by fiat. They want me to say that homosexuality is just an orientation - no better or worse than any other. They want me to teach my kids that. I will not . My eyes see; my ears hear.

To me, there should be a very high threshold for making judgements of others' behaviors.

I agree. But the well-being of my children and general society meets that threshhold.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Musicman, don't you know. Gays turn to children because society won't accept them!

 

[musicman]

Musicman, don't you know. Gays turn to children because society won't accept them!

:rotflmao:

 

[007]

Musicman, you have been doing an OUTSTANDING job of debating in this thread. Simply OUTSTANDING. Tried to rep you again, but, gotta do that spread it around thing.

When ever I read through threads where people argue the pro's and con's of homosexuality, the pro's reply's always ring hollow. Every time I see the word "normal" used in a context with homosexuality, I want to stand up and scream, "THERE IS NOTHING ASSOCIATED WITH HOMOSEXUALITY THAT IS NORMAL, LOOSE THE FUCKING NORMAL"!!!

I also think that Dr. Stern did a fantastic job of describing problematic sysmptoms of homosexuality, i.e., stunted emotional growth. In fact, there may even be a classic example of that right here on this board.