The Homosexual Dilemma

[beagle9]

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Why don't you link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists instead of an anti-gay site?

You mean like this:

"The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
factors.1–3 There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
choice into the origins of sexual orientation. The College wishes to clarify
that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In 1973 the American
Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded there was no scientific evidence
that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic
glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases
of the World Health Organization followed suit in1992." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf​

>>>>

Trotting out religion
Trotting out morality
Trotting out justice
Trotting out social norms
Trotting out customs and mores
Trotting out tradition

Etc etc

So old fashioned. We've thown most of it out, and look where we are now.

If you think trotting out something doesn't work, then how about all those who have trotted out the civil rights struggles along with every other kind of struggle or excuse they have used, and how they have applied all of these to their causes in life, but religious values, conservative thinking, integrity, decency and morals are not the same things when used ? I say it is open territory just like the special interest groups have attached themselves to a cause that doesn't really apply to them or their cause in life, but they saw a very tiny and/or slim opening in the wall, and they took it by annexing the house next door very quickly. They figure if the get enough houses (minds) occupied (won over or brainwashed) then they win right ?

It has blindsided many this tactic they have used, but I think people have learned of the tactic now, and they are battling back with their own tactics as well. Hey it's all fair, but some don't want it no way but their way, yet that ain't the way fairness works now is it ? Hey all's fair in love and war right ?

 

[80zephyr]

God these assholes are dumb. One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids. Morons here, total fucking morons.

Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Mark

 

[beagle9]

You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.

Obvious nonsense. Nature is about reproduction. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?

As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..

If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....because its our invention. A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.

Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Understand what she is saying here folks.

It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.

Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one.

Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive.

Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit.

Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.

You said:

Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex

In the natural scheme o things, you are correct. Why do you think nature made it so pleasurable to have sex? Why do you think nature gave us our urges?

You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.

Obvious nonsense. Nature is about reproduction. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?

As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..

If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....because its our invention. A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.

Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Understand what she is saying here folks.

It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.

Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one.

Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive.

Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit.

Wrong. Nature does have a plan, just like it does for every other living creature on earth. Its called reproduction. And nature will make the sexual act so appealing that people will do it, every chance they get, in hopes of propagating the species. Nature "understands" that if you make something pleasurable, you'll partake in it. Just like when you get hungry, you'll eat. Can you imagine how much of a chore it would be to eat if you didn't get hungry? Same thing with sex. If it didn't feel good, who'd do it?

If you don't understand that nature built in the "fun" of sex to aid reproduction, I don't know what to tell you. And while humans don't have intercourse just to have babies, the built in "nature" does not know that and persists in making it "fun", no matter the reason or age.

Mark



Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.

All things have been given unto humans with responsibilities also given unto them as well. Anything can be abused, and there is a lot of abuse out there.

 

[MaryL]

There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.

Whether you 'buy' it or not is irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional jurisprudence gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, they have the right to express themselves as individuals absent interference by the state, and they constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, guaranteeing them the right to self-determination and personal liberty, as is the case with all Americans.

Abysmal logic here. What category does Homosexuality fit into under the Constitution? Nowhere is even Heterosexuality mentioned in the constitution, Sexual preference is never an issue. And, secondly, it hasn't been disproven that Homosexuality isn't just a garden variety sexual neurosis. Everybody has a neurosis, not sure it merits coverage under the constitution.

 

[80zephyr]

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

 

[deltex1]

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Why don't you link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists instead of an anti-gay site?

You mean like this:

"The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
factors.1–3 There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
choice into the origins of sexual orientation. The College wishes to clarify
that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In 1973 the American
Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded there was no scientific evidence
that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic
glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases
of the World Health Organization followed suit in1992." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf​

>>>>

Trotting out religion
Trotting out morality
Trotting out justice
Trotting out social norms
Trotting out customs and mores
Trotting out tradition

Etc etc

So old fashioned. We've thown most of it out, and look where we are now.

If you think trotting out something doesn't work, then how about all those who have trotted out the civil rights struggles along with every other kind of struggle or excuse they have used, and how they have applied all of these to their causes in life, but religious values, conservative thinking, integrity, decency and morals are not the same things when used ? I say it is open territory just like the special interest groups have attached themselves to a cause that doesn't really apply to them or their cause in life, but they saw a very tiny and/or slim opening in the wall, and they took it by annexing the house next door very quickly. They figure if the get enough houses (minds) occupied (won over or brainwashed) then they win right ?

It has blindsided many this tactic they have used, but I think people have learned of the tactic now, and they are battling back with their own tactics as well. Hey it's all fair, but some don't want it no way but their way, yet that ain't the way fairness works now is it ? Hey all's fair in love and war right ?

Not sure we are on the same wave length...what i was inferring was that the phrase "trotting out religion" trivializes the concept of religion...just as using that phrase to modify other important concepts, trivializes them also. We have been trivializing what made us great since the 60s. Not the direction to go.

 

[MaryL]

Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this. But there isn't anything in the Constitution that gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

God these assholes are dumb. One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids. Morons here, total fucking morons.

Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.

You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins". The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex. We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False statement: "Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, that it is sexual dysfunction is not even remotely debatable." Of course it is.

MaryL, whether you buy it or not is immaterial, as are Where r my keys' silly arguments.

In the world of nature, it most assuredly is a dysfunction. Homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, which leads life to die out. Of this, there can be no debate. Mark

Mark, same sex attracton occurs in every generation. Homosexuals are the children of heterosexuals. Reproduction has nothing to do with marriage equality. Please, think clearly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this. But there isn't anything in the Constitution that gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?

Once again a false comparison.

Epilepsy has nothing to do with marriage equality.

Marriage equality is the elimination of special privilege for heterosexuals.

 

[MaryL]

I like that, please think clearly...Homosexuality isn't about thinking clearly, is it? It's a sexual neuroses, a dysfunction. Lets think clearly about thinking unclearly. George Carlin and his female wife/cowriter would have a field day with this.

 

[MaryL]

Don't kid your self. Epileptics didn't chose their lives. I can't begin to tell you about the auras epilepsy brings, the anxiety and the isolation, I am not sure even gays can relate. But life goes on, we are not asking for special rights. You are right, a sexual neurosis doesn't compare to an actual physical handicap. Not in a million years. And Still, we aren't asking for special rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your sense of sexuality, MaryL, is obviously a neuroses with you.

Your epilepsy (my sister and her daughter have it) is not an equivalent in this discussion. They are not differences of kind but of degree.

You need to think clearly, and that will begin for you with a counselor.

Homosexuality is not a disorder.

Marriage equality ends hetero privilege.

Think clearly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MaryL's confirmation bias leads to cognitive dissonance.

 

[MaryL]

It's weird about that, isn't it. Homosexuality is on par with voyeurism or people that eat human excrement. Epilepsy? Come on now. In theory, we all have the same rights. I respect that, I don't need extra rights because of...fill in the bloody blank. Let's don't let this debate get ridiculous. gays are sick sexually. They need help, not special constitutional rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's weird about that, isn't it. Homosexuality is on par with voyeurism or people that eat human excrement. Epilepsy? Come on now. In theory, we all have the same rights. I respect that, I don't need extra rights because of...fill in the bloody blank.

Homosexuality is a sexual compulsion just like voyeurism or eating excrement. Those people don't have a choice either. That's what makes it a compulsion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.

Amazing. The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them. No connection at all but they do get excited.

 

[MaryL]

Damn. I've known plenty of gays. Not like I hold myself above folks, but all the lesbians and gays struck me as just messed up neurotic people with weird sexual fetishes. Not like I was pure as the driven snow. My mental problems were driven by a physical issue proven by science to exist, epilepsy. Anxiety and even more anxiety. Panic attacks, auras caused bright flashing lights. If I could, I would be normal like you hetros or gays. I take medication for it. I think, 40 or 50 years from now, gays will find hope in new medication or psychiatric help. My brother in law had a sex change, and it seems so weird to me this sexual identity crisis people are having now...it seems so artificial.

 

[Katzndogz]

But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.

Amazing. The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them. No connection at all but they do get excited.

Up until the homosexual activist lobby successfully achieved a political change to the definition of aberrational compulsion it was the same. It's not like something new was discovered. There was no psychological breakthrough. The definition was just changed to be politically correct.