The History behind Normalizing Homosexuality...

Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went AwayAn alternative perspective on mental disorders | PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote!

Read MOAR!:

Mental Health Diagnoses Decided by Vote, Not Discovery

And if you don't Believe this Doctor's Claims about the Protests, would you Believe Gays themselves?...

"The May 1971 Scene: A Bad Time for a Conference in Washington DC
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington DC during the first week of May 1971, amidst the turmoil and congestion of the MayDay antiwar demonstrations and at a time when the Gay MayDay contingent in those demonstrations had drawn large numbers of gay men and lesbians to the city. The convention was held at the Shoreham Hotel which backed up on Rock Creek Park. The scene in the city was chaotic: protestors, estimated at more than 10,000, (the remnants of an initial contingent of nearly 50,000) had spent the mornings of Monday May 3rd and Tuesday May 4th disrupting traffic, blocking roads and bridges, and trying to bring the normal business of government to a halt in protest against the Vietnam War. An even larger federal force, some 13,000, of soldiers (Marines and US Army), National Guardsmen, and police fought off the protestors. More than 10,000 were arrested. Tear gas and smoke were in the air in downtown Washington DC. The streets around the APA convention were patrolled

Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows."


1971: Zapping the APA Convention


The best part about this History is that at this time Gay Organizations were Directly in Line with and Marching with NAMBLA... Fact not Fiction.

It wasn't until 1994 that the Gay Community was finally "outed" regarding their Ties to NAMBLA when the ILGA was removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease for it.

Since that year, they have been Smart enough to Avoid their old Friends...

But not always:

University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia

Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002

Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota (Link has since been Purged by the Star... Of course... But I have the entire thing here)

Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it...

With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex.

"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City...

Mirkin, whose academic specialty is the politics of sex, wrote in a 1999 article published in The Journal of Homosexuality that society perceives youths as seduced, abused victims and not "partners or initiators or willing participants" in sex with adults, "even if they are hustlers."

In an interview, Mirkin said the outrage surrounding the Roman Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal illustrates how the public views acts of intergenerational contact as "one big blur" of child abuse when it's likely "very, very mild stuff."

"We say if someone touches or molests or diddles or whatever a kid it will ruin the rest of their life. I don't believe it. I think kids are more likely to laugh at it more than anything else -- unless the whole culture says this is the most horrible thing that can happen to you."

Mirkin is not alone in questioning whether children are harmed by sexual contact with adults. The March 2002 American Psychologist devotes its entire issue to the ongoing fallout of a journal article that did just that.

The piece, in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, was written by Bruce Rind, then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University; Robert Bauserman, a lecturer then with the department of psychology at the University of Michigan; and Philip Tromovitch, then pursuing a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania.

The trio reviewed 59 studies of college students who, as children, had sexual interaction with significantly older people or were coerced into sexual activity with someone of their own age. They concluded that negative effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." It recommended that a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse."

A soon-to-be-released book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," is being advertised by its publisher, University of Minnesota Press, as challenging widespread anxieties about pedophilia.

In an interview, the book's author, journalist Judith Levine, praised the Rind study as evidence that "doesn't line up with the ideology that it's always harmful for kids to have sexual relationships with adults."

She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it's almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.

She added, however, that, "yes, conceivably, absolutely" a boy's sexual experience with a priest could be positive."...


You can read MOAR at the link under the headline. :thup:

Of course I will be Attacked for Observing what is... But what I have Posted is 100% True.

And if you Doubt for a Minute that the Pedo's are the Gays of the 50's and 60's right now to the Gay Community, then you are kidding yourselves.

The ONLY Reason most of them Distances themselves from NAMBLA and the others is because they got Caught and it Harmed their own Agenda.

History is what it is... If you want to be Angry about History then so be it.

I'm just an Observer. :thup:

:)

peace...

Bodecea's Sock Seawytch never dealt with this OP either...

No Surprise.

:)

peace...
Not only been dealt with, been thrashed and trashed.

that is unless you think that the study of psychology simply stopped in the early 1970s and we haven't learned anything since.

You're not all that knowlegable about current events, are ya, little brother? :)


The Science didn't Change... The Politics did. :thup:

The APA Reacted to Protests... They didn't Root their Change in Science or Evidence... It was simply a Reaction to Protests and Social Winds at the time.

:)

peace...
 
While homosexuality might be considered "normal" by human definition and standards, it is not normal by Natural law. In Nature, sex is a means of propagating the species. Homosexuality does nothing to continue a species existence. Under human definition, sex is also a means to express one's affection for another. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, use sex as an expression of their affection for and bond with, another being.
In the human sense, I suppose one could label homosexuality as "normal" for homo-sapiens.

Scientists have determined that homosexuality occurs in about 1500 animal species and is therefore obviously considered natural; you are wrong. sorry :)

Links?

"it is not normal by Natural law." claim from gallantwarrior.

you first.....

Links?

:D


 
Yeah, that's why juvenile and non-dominant males hang around the edges of herds (tribes), often dashing in to breed the females when the superior males are engaged in combat. If you refer to the mounting behavior often observed in bachelor groups, you will also observe similar mounting activities in groups of females, too. If you observe closely enough, you will also notice that there is no sexual penetration. Such displays serve to establish the herd hierarchy, those doing the mounting being superior to those mounted.

"If we refer to the mounting behavior often observed"? No we are not referring to such. We are referring to homosexuality being found in 1500 species which commonsensically means homosexuality is natural, by definition because it occurs in nature.

Links?

Why doth thou demand links from others, when thou hast not first supplied links for thy assertions, eh? :)

You first.

 
"Normal" if you wish to consider it a "human condition". Highly abnormal if you consider natural law.

Not at all. It occurs in about 1500 different animal species, therefore it occurs in nature; hence by definition it is natural.

Links, documentation, and specific instances.

"Normal" if you wish to consider it a "human condition". Highly abnormal if you consider natural law."

As you said: Links, documentation, and specific instances."

:)

That is unless your rules concerning "links, documentation, and specific instances apply to others...but don't apply to you???

You decide, then get back with me.

:D
 
It is absolutely hilarious that homosexuals, and their advocates, simply will not, or perhaps cannot, accept the fact that what they do, while "normal" for humans, is not natural in the overall biological scheme of Nature. The fact that they argue to vehemently, without providing verifiable proof of their claims that homosexuality occurs naturally in healthy, normal mammal populations, actually indicates their deep uncertainty that their claims are true. They demonstrate an obsessive drive to force acceptance of their biological abnormality on others, as if widespread, general acceptance will somehow legitimize their status.
Given the facts of their demands, and the response of some sectors of society, this is NOT about equality at all. It is most definitely about obtaining some privileged status and reaping government largesse based on their claims of being somehow "special" and different from the segment of the population behaving naturally, and not just "normally".

It is absolutely hilarious that homophobes, and their advocates, simply will not, or perhaps cannot, accept the fact that what gays do is normal for humans and is also natural in the overall biological scheme of Nature because homosexuality occurs in nature. (Webster defines “natural” as: “existing in or produced by nature”, hence by definition, homosexuality is logically natural). The fact that homophobes argue so vehemently, without providing verifiable proof of their claims that homosexuality does not occur naturally in healthy, normal mammal populations, actually indicates their deep uncertainty that their claims are true. They demonstrate an obsessive drive to force acceptance of their bigoted hatred and homophobic abnormality on others, as if widespread general acceptance will somehow legitimize and rationalize their animosity of people who have done them no ill.
Given the facts of homophobes’ demands, and the response of some sectors of society (for example the far right ultra-religious nutbag freakazoids), this is NOT about logic and common sense at all. It is most definitely about obtaining acceptance for their prejudice and intolerance, from others in society so that homophobes’ obsessive hatred is viewed as justified, rational, and moral; when in fact it is neither justified, nor rational, nor moral.

I like how your argument kinda-sorta works both ways like that. don’t you? :D
So again, you demand proof from others, while avoiding giving any yourself.

Why the irrational and inconsistent double standard, buddy, eh?

:)

Buuuut, I’ll take the high road and be the better man by providing my links first. Hopefully you will have the honor and integrity of reciprocating by providing your links to support your claims as well.

Here you go:
>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

Will you show integrity and honor by now providing your links, or will you not?

Balls in your court.
 
Not at all. It occurs in about 1500 different animal species, therefore it occurs in nature; hence by definition it is natural.

Links, documentation, and specific instances.

"Normal" if you wish to consider it a "human condition". Highly abnormal if you consider natural law."

As you said: Links, documentation, and specific instances."

:)

That is unless your rules concerning "links, documentation, and specific instances apply to others...but don't apply to you???

You decide, then get back with me.

:D

I express my opinion based on observation and study. You make a quantifiable assertion. Or is it simply your opinion that 1500 species of animals are homosexual?
 
It is absolutely hilarious that homosexuals, and their advocates, simply will not, or perhaps cannot, accept the fact that what they do, while "normal" for humans, is not natural in the overall biological scheme of Nature. The fact that they argue to vehemently, without providing verifiable proof of their claims that homosexuality occurs naturally in healthy, normal mammal populations, actually indicates their deep uncertainty that their claims are true. They demonstrate an obsessive drive to force acceptance of their biological abnormality on others, as if widespread, general acceptance will somehow legitimize their status.
Given the facts of their demands, and the response of some sectors of society, this is NOT about equality at all. It is most definitely about obtaining some privileged status and reaping government largesse based on their claims of being somehow "special" and different from the segment of the population behaving naturally, and not just "normally".

It is absolutely hilarious that homophobes, and their advocates, simply will not, or perhaps cannot, accept the fact that what gays do is normal for humans and is also natural in the overall biological scheme of Nature because homosexuality occurs in nature. (Webster defines “natural” as: “existing in or produced by nature”, hence by definition, homosexuality is logically natural). The fact that homophobes argue so vehemently, without providing verifiable proof of their claims that homosexuality does not occur naturally in healthy, normal mammal populations, actually indicates their deep uncertainty that their claims are true. They demonstrate an obsessive drive to force acceptance of their bigoted hatred and homophobic abnormality on others, as if widespread general acceptance will somehow legitimize and rationalize their animosity of people who have done them no ill.
Given the facts of homophobes’ demands, and the response of some sectors of society (for example the far right ultra-religious nutbag freakazoids), this is NOT about logic and common sense at all. It is most definitely about obtaining acceptance for their prejudice and intolerance, from others in society so that homophobes’ obsessive hatred is viewed as justified, rational, and moral; when in fact it is neither justified, nor rational, nor moral.

I like how your argument kinda-sorta works both ways like that. don’t you? :D
So again, you demand proof from others, while avoiding giving any yourself.

Why the irrational and inconsistent double standard, buddy, eh?

:)

Buuuut, I’ll take the high road and be the better man by providing my links first. Hopefully you will have the honor and integrity of reciprocating by providing your links to support your claims as well.

Here you go:
>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

Will you show integrity and honor by now providing your links, or will you not?

Balls in your court.

Too bad your link is a fail, too.
 
3.GLSEN believes that learning about the diversity of humankind is an essential part of education in a democratic society, and affirms the right of students to learn in classroom environments that nurture diversity. GLSEN encourages schools to allow students in all grade levels access to curricula, trainings, texts and materials -- in all areas including but not limited to, history, literature, family life, sexuality and health education -- that are relevant, comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically-accurate and inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. GLSEN calls upon public policy makers to remove any prohibitive laws that forbid or discourage in-school discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

The GLSEN Public Policy Platform | GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

When I Suggested that 5th Grade Sex Ed would be a Target for the Agenda I was Attacked... Right here on this Board.

:)

peace...
 
Buuuut, I’ll take the high road and be the better man by providing my links first. Hopefully you will have the honor and integrity of reciprocating by providing your links to support your claims as well.

Here you go:
>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

Will you show integrity and honor by now providing your links, or will you not?

Balls in your court.[/color]

Animals do ALL Sorts of things... When you guys try to Justify your Defiance of your Natural Equipment and Design with what Animals do...

You really Invite Analogies to Beastiality. :thup:

Did you know that Animals Eat their Young?...

They also Engage in Interspecies Sexual Contact... True Story.

Let me Guess... You only want to Selectively look at the Animal Kingdom?...

You must be a Liberal. :rofl:

:)

peace...
 
Bodecea's Sock Seawytch never dealt with this OP either...

No Surprise.

:)

peace...
Not only been dealt with, been thrashed and trashed.

that is unless you think that the study of psychology simply stopped in the early 1970s and we haven't learned anything since.

You're not all that knowlegable about current events, are ya, little brother? :)


The Science didn't Change... The Politics did. :thup:

The APA Reacted to Protests... They didn't Root their Change in Science or Evidence... It was simply a Reaction to Protests and Social Winds at the time.

:)

peace...

Science is always changing and growing the more we study and learn, my son.

Science does not remain stagnant.

Politics are always politics.

:)
 
Not only been dealt with, been thrashed and trashed.

that is unless you think that the study of psychology simply stopped in the early 1970s and we haven't learned anything since.

You're not all that knowlegable about current events, are ya, little brother? :)


The Science didn't Change... The Politics did. :thup:

The APA Reacted to Protests... They didn't Root their Change in Science or Evidence... It was simply a Reaction to Protests and Social Winds at the time.

:)

peace...

Science is always changing and growing the more we study and learn, my son.

Science does not remain stagnant.

Politics are always politics.

:)

When this Happened there was no Change or Evolution in their Science...

They simply Reacted to the Protests and Decided it wasnt' worth the Negative Press.

It's History... do what you want with it.

The APA wasn't Anti-Gay calling Homosexuality a "Mental Disorder" in the early 70's simply because Gays are "icky".

Link me where their previous Science was Negated by New Science when they Changed their Position?...

You can't.

:)

peace...
 
Links, documentation, and specific instances.

"Normal" if you wish to consider it a "human condition". Highly abnormal if you consider natural law."

As you said: Links, documentation, and specific instances."

:)

That is unless your rules concerning "links, documentation, and specific instances apply to others...but don't apply to you???

You decide, then get back with me.

:D

I express my opinion based on observation and study. You make a quantifiable assertion. Or is it simply your opinion that 1500 species of animals are homosexual?


chuckle chuckle. showed your lack of integrity and honor...just like i knew you would. thanks

One based one's opinions off of facts if one's opinions are sound and valid; if one (you in this case) can not produce facts to support one's opinions, then those opinions are unsound, invalid, and possibly based merely upon irrational presumption and illogical prejudices.

So, you admit you have no facts.

thanks for playin'..

Next?

:D
 
It is absolutely hilarious that homosexuals, and their advocates, simply will not, or perhaps cannot, accept the fact that what they do, while "normal" for humans, is not natural in the overall biological scheme of Nature. The fact that they argue to vehemently, without providing verifiable proof of their claims that homosexuality occurs naturally in healthy, normal mammal populations, actually indicates their deep uncertainty that their claims are true. They demonstrate an obsessive drive to force acceptance of their biological abnormality on others, as if widespread, general acceptance will somehow legitimize their status.
Given the facts of their demands, and the response of some sectors of society, this is NOT about equality at all. It is most definitely about obtaining some privileged status and reaping government largesse based on their claims of being somehow "special" and different from the segment of the population behaving naturally, and not just "normally".

It is absolutely hilarious that homophobes, and their advocates, simply will not, or perhaps cannot, accept the fact that what gays do is normal for humans and is also natural in the overall biological scheme of Nature because homosexuality occurs in nature. (Webster defines “natural” as: “existing in or produced by nature”, hence by definition, homosexuality is logically natural). The fact that homophobes argue so vehemently, without providing verifiable proof of their claims that homosexuality does not occur naturally in healthy, normal mammal populations, actually indicates their deep uncertainty that their claims are true. They demonstrate an obsessive drive to force acceptance of their bigoted hatred and homophobic abnormality on others, as if widespread general acceptance will somehow legitimize and rationalize their animosity of people who have done them no ill.
Given the facts of homophobes’ demands, and the response of some sectors of society (for example the far right ultra-religious nutbag freakazoids), this is NOT about logic and common sense at all. It is most definitely about obtaining acceptance for their prejudice and intolerance, from others in society so that homophobes’ obsessive hatred is viewed as justified, rational, and moral; when in fact it is neither justified, nor rational, nor moral.

I like how your argument kinda-sorta works both ways like that. don’t you? :D
So again, you demand proof from others, while avoiding giving any yourself.

Why the irrational and inconsistent double standard, buddy, eh?

:)

Buuuut, I’ll take the high road and be the better man by providing my links first. Hopefully you will have the honor and integrity of reciprocating by providing your links to support your claims as well.

Here you go:
>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

Will you show integrity and honor by now providing your links, or will you not?

Balls in your court.

Too bad your link is a fail, too.


Oh darn...did you forget to change the word "dot" to a . between the www and the word boundless?

Wow, i reckon you got a problem with your operator headspace and timing there, dude.

:D

(yer not all that bright, are you, mal? ) yuk yuk yuk ;)


 
3.GLSEN believes that learning about the diversity of humankind is an essential part of education in a democratic society, and affirms the right of students to learn in classroom environments that nurture diversity. GLSEN encourages schools to allow students in all grade levels access to curricula, trainings, texts and materials -- in all areas including but not limited to, history, literature, family life, sexuality and health education -- that are relevant, comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically-accurate and inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. GLSEN calls upon public policy makers to remove any prohibitive laws that forbid or discourage in-school discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

The GLSEN Public Policy Platform | GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

When I Suggested that 5th Grade Sex Ed would be a Target for the Agenda I was Attacked... Right here on this Board.

:)

peace...

Nothing like an eeeever so slight change of subtopic to deflect, eh?

Yer a lil weasel, eh buddy?

:D
 
Buuuut, I&#8217;ll take the high road and be the better man by providing my links first. Hopefully you will have the honor and integrity of reciprocating by providing your links to support your claims as well.

Here you go:
>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

Will you show integrity and honor by now providing your links, or will you not?

Balls in your court.[/color]

Animals do ALL Sorts of things... When you guys try to Justify your Defiance of your Natural Equipment and Design with what Animals do...

You really Invite Analogies to Beastiality. :thup:

Did you know that Animals Eat their Young?...

They also Engage in Interspecies Sexual Contact... True Story.

Let me Guess... You only want to Selectively look at the Animal Kingdom?...

You must be a Liberal. :rofl:

:)

peace...

Now that was an exceptionally good example of the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts".

Homophobe: "Homosexuality ain't natural I tells ya; you don't see animals doing it...and man is just an animal so if they don't do it, why should we? (of course i provide no evidence to support that assertion.)"

Rationalist: Homosexuality occurs in about 1500 species.

Homophobe: oh yeah? Well, where's your evidence to support your assertion? (even though i provided no evidence to support my assertion)"

Rationalist: here you go.....>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

(psst, Mal, remember to change the dot to a . )

Homophobe: Well.....er.....um....ahem.....well....Animals do ALL Sorts of things....and we're not animals.....um....so there!"

You homophobic knuckledraggers aren't all that intelligent....but i gotta admit, yer funny. :D

Let me guess, you didn't gradumucate the 8th grade, right jethro? :tongue:
 
Buuuut, I’ll take the high road and be the better man by providing my links first. Hopefully you will have the honor and integrity of reciprocating by providing your links to support your claims as well.

Here you go:
>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

Will you show integrity and honor by now providing your links, or will you not?

Balls in your court.[/color]

Animals do ALL Sorts of things... When you guys try to Justify your Defiance of your Natural Equipment and Design with what Animals do...

You really Invite Analogies to Beastiality. :thup:

Did you know that Animals Eat their Young?...

They also Engage in Interspecies Sexual Contact... True Story.

Let me Guess... You only want to Selectively look at the Animal Kingdom?...

You must be a Liberal. :rofl:

:)

peace...

Now that was an exceptionally good example of the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts".

Homophobe: "Homosexuality ain't natural I tells ya; you don't see animals doing it...and man is just an animal so if they don't do it, why should we? (of course i provide no evidence to support that assertion.)"

Rationalist: Homosexuality occurs in about 1500 species.

Homophobe: oh yeah? Well, where's your evidence to support your assertion? (even though i provided no evidence to support my assertion)"

Rationalist: here you go.....>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

(psst, Mal, remember to change the dot to a . )

Homophobe: Well.....er.....um....ahem.....well....Animals do ALL Sorts of things....and we're not animals.....um....so there!"

You homophobic knuckledraggers aren't all that intelligent....but i gotta admit, yer funny. :D

Let me guess, you didn't gradumucate the 8th grade, right jethro? :tongue:

Does your Retardation Worsen when you are Frustated by Facts?... :dunno:

It's Irritating that you can't Counter the Obvious... You want to use Animals to Validate your Sexually Deviant Choices but you don't want to Observe EVERYTHING that Animals do and Relate it to Humans...

Because you are not Honest... Your Agenda is not Honest...

And your Deviation has not Validation on it's own. :thup:

:)

peace...
 
The Science didn't Change... The Politics did. :thup:

The APA Reacted to Protests... They didn't Root their Change in Science or Evidence... It was simply a Reaction to Protests and Social Winds at the time.

:)

peace...

Science is always changing and growing the more we study and learn, my son.

Science does not remain stagnant.

Politics are always politics.

:)

When this Happened there was no Change or Evolution in their Science...

They simply Reacted to the Protests and Decided it wasnt' worth the Negative Press.

It's History... do what you want with it.

The APA wasn't Anti-Gay calling Homosexuality a "Mental Disorder" in the early 70's simply because Gays are "icky".

Link me where their previous Science was Negated by New Science when they Changed their Position?...

You can't.

:)

peace...


Here's one good link that may enlighten ya'll:

>>>>www dot saybrook.edu/newexistentialists/posts/05-11-12<<<<

Obviously I can. ;)

(Oh, and pssst, Micor-Mal....don't forget to change the "dot" to a . this time....ya "maroonic idjit". :D
 
Animals do ALL Sorts of things... When you guys try to Justify your Defiance of your Natural Equipment and Design with what Animals do...

You really Invite Analogies to Beastiality. :thup:

Did you know that Animals Eat their Young?...

They also Engage in Interspecies Sexual Contact... True Story.

Let me Guess... You only want to Selectively look at the Animal Kingdom?...

You must be a Liberal. :rofl:

:)

peace...

Now that was an exceptionally good example of the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts".

Homophobe: "Homosexuality ain't natural I tells ya; you don't see animals doing it...and man is just an animal so if they don't do it, why should we? (of course i provide no evidence to support that assertion.)"

Rationalist: Homosexuality occurs in about 1500 species.

Homophobe: oh yeah? Well, where's your evidence to support your assertion? (even though i provided no evidence to support my assertion)"

Rationalist: here you go.....>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

(psst, Mal, remember to change the dot to a . )

Homophobe: Well.....er.....um....ahem.....well....Animals do ALL Sorts of things....and we're not animals.....um....so there!"

You homophobic knuckledraggers aren't all that intelligent....but i gotta admit, yer funny. :D

Let me guess, you didn't gradumucate the 8th grade, right jethro? :tongue:

Does your Retardation Worsen when you are Frustated by Facts?... :dunno:

It's Irritating that you can't Counter the Obvious... You want to use Animals to Validate your Sexually Deviant Choices but you don't want to Observe EVERYTHING that Animals do and Relate it to Humans...

Because you are not Honest... Your Agenda is not Honest...

And your Deviation has not Validation on it's own. :thup:

:)

peace...

You're obviously confused and showing your inability to follow along with the argument. I don't know why, it's pretty simple to comprehend here.

Here it is again in reader's digest condensed version. Please do try to pay attention this time, lil guy.

The argument was that homosexuality isn't natural.

I stated that it is natural as defined by Webster's dictionary because it occurs in nature (about 1500 species of animals and i provided a link to a study which attests to same.)

My argument had naught to do with using animal behavior to validate human behavior, it was merely to show that homosexuality is natural.

Either you are rather dimwitted, extremely dense and legitimately can't comprehend this simple fact....


....or you do understand what this mini-debate was about and you are using deception to fallaciously move the goal posts.

Why is that?

Because you, Micro-Mal are not Honest... Your Agenda of hate is not Honest...

And your societal moral Deviation has not Validation on it's own. Your bigoted hatred of and illogical prejudiced toward those who have done you no ill is immoral and irrational.

You lack integrity, honor, respect for others, and courage.

Aaaand with that. it's time to get ready for bed.

G'night.......buddy. :)

 
Last edited:
Now that was an exceptionally good example of the fallacy of "Moving the goalposts".

Homophobe: "Homosexuality ain't natural I tells ya; you don't see animals doing it...and man is just an animal so if they don't do it, why should we? (of course i provide no evidence to support that assertion.)"

Rationalist: Homosexuality occurs in about 1500 species.

Homophobe: oh yeah? Well, where's your evidence to support your assertion? (even though i provided no evidence to support my assertion)"

Rationalist: here you go.....>>>www dot boundless.com/psychology/gender-development-and-sexuality/sexual-orientation/homosexuality-in-animals/<<<

(psst, Mal, remember to change the dot to a . )

Homophobe: Well.....er.....um....ahem.....well....Animals do ALL Sorts of things....and we're not animals.....um....so there!"

You homophobic knuckledraggers aren't all that intelligent....but i gotta admit, yer funny. :D

Let me guess, you didn't gradumucate the 8th grade, right jethro? :tongue:

Does your Retardation Worsen when you are Frustated by Facts?... :dunno:

It's Irritating that you can't Counter the Obvious... You want to use Animals to Validate your Sexually Deviant Choices but you don't want to Observe EVERYTHING that Animals do and Relate it to Humans...

Because you are not Honest... Your Agenda is not Honest...

And your Deviation has not Validation on it's own. :thup:

:)

peace...

You're obviously confused and showing your inability to follow along with the argument. I don't know why, it's pretty simple to comprehend here.

Here it is again in reader's digest condensed version. Please do try to pay attention this time, lil guy.

The argument was that homosexuality isn't natural.

I stated that it is natural as defined by Webster's dictionary because it occurs in nature (about 1500 species of animals and i provided a link to a study which attests to same.)

My argument had naught to do with using animal behavior to validate human behavior, it was merely to show that homosexuality is natural.

Either you are rather dimwitted and extremely dense and legitimately can't comprehend this simple fact....


....or you do understand what this min-debate was about and you are using deception to fallaciously move the goal posts.

Why is that?

Because you, Micro-Mal are not Honest... Your Agenda of hate is not Honest...

And your societal moral Deviation has not Validation on it's own. Your bigoted hatred of and illogical prejudiced toward those who have done you no ill is immoral and irrational.

You lack integrity, honor, respect for others, and courage.


Again, Load that should've been Swallowed...

You did nothing to Refute my Observation that you are using a Certain Animal Behavior to try to Justify and or Validate Human Sexual Deviancies.

Good luck with that. I Prefer to not find my Validation in what Animals do.

I can see why you have to go there thought... :rofl:

:)

peace...
 
Does your Retardation Worsen when you are Frustated by Facts?... :dunno:

It's Irritating that you can't Counter the Obvious... You want to use Animals to Validate your Sexually Deviant Choices but you don't want to Observe EVERYTHING that Animals do and Relate it to Humans...

Because you are not Honest... Your Agenda is not Honest...

And your Deviation has not Validation on it's own. :thup:

:)

peace...

You're obviously confused and showing your inability to follow along with the argument. I don't know why, it's pretty simple to comprehend here.

Here it is again in reader's digest condensed version. Please do try to pay attention this time, lil guy.

The argument was that homosexuality isn't natural.

I stated that it is natural as defined by Webster's dictionary because it occurs in nature (about 1500 species of animals and i provided a link to a study which attests to same.)

My argument had naught to do with using animal behavior to validate human behavior, it was merely to show that homosexuality is natural.

Either you are rather dimwitted and extremely dense and legitimately can't comprehend this simple fact....


....or you do understand what this min-debate was about and you are using deception to fallaciously move the goal posts.

Why is that?

Because you, Micro-Mal are not Honest... Your Agenda of hate is not Honest...

And your societal moral Deviation has not Validation on it's own. Your bigoted hatred of and illogical prejudiced toward those who have done you no ill is immoral and irrational.

You lack integrity, honor, respect for others, and courage.


Again, Load that should've been Swallowed...

You did nothing to Refute my Observation that you are using a Certain Animal Behavior to try to Justify and or Validate Human Sexual Deviancies.

Good luck with that. I Prefer to not find my Validation in what Animals do.

I can see why you have to go there thought... :rofl:

:)

peace...

That's ironic...you seem to me to be the epitome of an animal, what with that "self-preservation" and "king of the jungle" shit mentality you espouse. And, again, "can" the "homoerotic" references, they don't reflect well on you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top