| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2008 05:28:16 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction |
You are claiming that religious viewpoints are identical to the diagnosis of clinical mental problems. |
Well, until 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) classified homosexual behavior as a disorder. The APA had to change their diagnosis after pressures from the gay activists. This happened while 68% of psychiatrists in the USA, "considered homosexuality to be the result of psychological maladaption."
However, it's not just religious viewpoint when most psychiatrists agree it's a disorder. There's just a political move by gay rights activists to push this disorder as being an acceptable behavior. |
I call BS. The APA did have pressure from homosexual groups, however, the nomenclature committee considered several scientific studies before deciding to reclassify homosexual behavior. Just because there was political pressure doesn't mean the APA was wrong. Also, since up to that point the APA had been telling everyone that homosexuality was a disorder it's amazing that the percentage of psychiatrists that concurred at that time wasn't higher. So what is that figure at now I wonder? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 05:31:09 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Well, until 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) classified homosexual behavior as a disorder. |
Until the mid-1800's most people in the United States considered tomatoes poisonous. Obviously, there must have been a political move by pizza parlors to push this relative of deadly nightshade as an acceptable food, right?
...or maybe people simply realized it wasn't true... |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 05:31:32 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think government should be in the business of marriage period but as long as it does I think you have keep things consistent (i.e. marriage and not domestic partners or civil unions)... |
Government has to be involved in marriage since many of the associated benefits/differences (taxes, estate, health, etc.) are government-related. The church only became involved to keep records for the government and later co-opted the whole enchilada as their own. |
I have to say I have a different view of history on this. I'm open to teaching though. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 05:35:20 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by Louis:
How supremely insulting. Do you seriously think that clinical diagnoses are determined by pressure groups?
Do you appreciate how your attitude -- religiously rooted, not clinically arrived at -- is injurious to people? People who have done nothing to you, have done you no wrong, could care less about how you practice your faith? Do you realize that your attitude and your exposition of it in places like this is discordant and hurtful? |
Woah, sorry man. I'm not trying to be supremely insulting. I do have a problem when someone with a Same Sex Attraction disorder tries to change my believes.
How so you ask?
Zondervan faces $60M federal lawsuit over Bible, homosexuality
Christian Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Wedding
Georgetown (a Catholic University) sued for anti-hetero job bias
Mandated homosexual adoptions forces Catholic Church to quit adoption agencies in England
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
Those are just a few I found after a quick search. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 05:38:13 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Woah, sorry man. I'm not trying to be supremely insulting. I do have a problem when someone with a Same Sex Attraction disorder tries to change my believes.
|
Well then, I guess no one who is gay should try to reason with you.
Message edited by author 2008-10-15 17:38:42. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 05:42:13 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Woah, sorry man. I'm not trying to be supremely insulting. I do have a problem when someone with a Same Sex Attraction disorder tries to change my believes.
|
Well then, I guess no one who is gay should try to reason with you. |
As we have seen and experienced many times over in this thread, some people just can't/won't be reasoned with.
Message edited by author 2008-10-15 17:42:42.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 06:17:25 PM · #232 |
This is just a FYI sort of thing which I didn't know before, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually has an article on marriage. I thought I'd pass it on:
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I'm not sure it helps the argument at all because as far as I could see the definition of marriage is left out, but I was not aware that a codification of human rights does address marriage at all. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 06:50:54 PM · #233 |
| Psychiatric disorders are based in part on what is functional behavior in a certain society. When society changes, what is sane and insane changes. In the 19th century there was a lot of "science" proving that blacks were inferior to whites. Does that make it so? And that was biology, which is much more scientific than psychology, often called a pseudoscience. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 07:02:48 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Psychiatric disorders are based in part on what is functional behavior in a certain society. When society changes, what is sane and insane changes. In the 19th century there was a lot of "science" proving that blacks were inferior to whites. Does that make it so? And that was biology, which is much more scientific than psychology, often called a pseudoscience. |
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since DrAchoo appears to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that DrAchoo and others like him are somehow socially dysfunctional?
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 07:15:27 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Psychiatric disorders are based in part on what is functional behavior in a certain society. When society changes, what is sane and insane changes. In the 19th century there was a lot of "science" proving that blacks were inferior to whites. Does that make it so? And that was biology, which is much more scientific than psychology, often called a pseudoscience. |
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since DrAchoo appears to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that DrAchoo and others like him are somehow socially dysfunctional? |
No more than your grumpiness Mick. I resent being boiled down to "anti-gay". I resent it quite a bit. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 07:42:22 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as a curiosity, does anybody have access to a survey or any data that lets us know what % of gays actually want to get married? I'm not talking about a hypothetical, "yes, I support gay marriage", but rather, "I want to be married." My assumption is it is a small %, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. |
"Civil unions (and registered/domestic partnerships) are currently recognized and accepted in approximately 30 out of 193 countries worldwide and in some U.S. states. However, in countries where it has been adopted, applications for marriage licenses have far exceeded governmental estimates of demand." I still don't see how anyone else is harmed by using the word marriage, though. If I named my dog "Marriage," I seriously doubt church congregations would picket my house demanding a change. It sounds like a convenient excuse to exclude "other" people IMO.
A parallel situation from the same article: "Until recently, children born outside of marriage were termed illegitimate and suffered legal disadvantages and social stigma. In recent years the legal relevance of illegitimacy has declined and social acceptance increased, especially in western countries." Is the definition of "regular" children harmed by including these kids or failing to call them bastards?
Originally posted by Nullix:
I do have a problem when someone with a Same Sex Attraction disorder tries to change my believes... |
You have a twisted sense of justice. The articles you listed are all examples of actions taken against discrimination. It's like someone who believes blacks or Jews are inferior complaining that they're not allowed to practice their bigotry. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 08:23:52 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as a curiosity, does anybody have access to a survey or any data that lets us know what % of gays actually want to get married? I'm not talking about a hypothetical, "yes, I support gay marriage", but rather, "I want to be married." My assumption is it is a small %, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. |
"Civil unions (and registered/domestic partnerships) are currently recognized and accepted in approximately 30 out of 193 countries worldwide and in some U.S. states. However, in countries where it has been adopted, applications for marriage licenses have far exceeded governmental estimates of demand." |
I'm not sure what your point is here. A) If the government estimated a few dozen people would get a gay civil union, then it's likely bad on their part. B) There is likely to be a spike when it first becomes legal as people have been waiting to do so. C) There is likely to be a spike when it first becomes legal as people may fear the opportunity will go away. D) The article cited in wiki says there were 15,672 gay unions in the year. During the same time there were 300,000 marriages in the UK. So roughly 1 in 20 unions were "gay". But I'm still not sure what your point is here and maybe I'll just let you elaborate. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 09:18:28 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Psychiatric disorders are based in part on what is functional behavior in a certain society. When society changes, what is sane and insane changes. In the 19th century there was a lot of "science" proving that blacks were inferior to whites. Does that make it so? And that was biology, which is much more scientific than psychology, often called a pseudoscience. |
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since DrAchoo appears to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that DrAchoo and others like him are somehow socially dysfunctional? |
No more than your grumpiness Mick. |
It's not grumpiness Jason. It's more like disgust or even moral outrage. Anytime I see an individual or group of people being mistreated by society, for religious or any other reason, it doesn't make me grumpy, it makes me want to puke. When I see something like that, I feel diminished as a person. It makes me feel less like being human is a good thing. In other words, it makes me feel ashamed to be a human being. I think we can be so much better than that. But it will never happen if we as a society can't get beyond our prejudices and narrow minded teaching.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I resent being boiled down to "anti-gay". I resent it quite a bit. |
I'm sorry Jason, but I don't know what else to call it. Gay people want the same rights and liberties that others citizens enjoy. You, and a sizable segment of the rest of society, want to deny them those rights. Whether it's because of religion or any other reason, it's unjust and hurtful. If that's not anti-gay, what is it?
Anyway, I'm sorry if what I said upset you. Actually, including you in the question was intended more as a joke than anything else, even though you've been the most prolific poster for the "other" side in this thread. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I think you're generally a pretty decent guy. I am a little surprised to find you arguing what I consider to be the wrong side of such an important social issue, but that's beside the point. How about if I restate the question and leave you out of it? Like so...
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since some people appear to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that those people are somehow socially dysfunctional?
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 10:31:25 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Psychiatric disorders are based in part on what is functional behavior in a certain society. When society changes, what is sane and insane changes. In the 19th century there was a lot of "science" proving that blacks were inferior to whites. Does that make it so? And that was biology, which is much more scientific than psychology, often called a pseudoscience. |
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since DrAchoo appears to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that DrAchoo and others like him are somehow socially dysfunctional? |
No more than your grumpiness Mick. |
It's not grumpiness Jason. It's more like disgust or even moral outrage. Anytime I see an individual or group of people being mistreated by society, for religious or any other reason, it doesn't make me grumpy, it makes me want to puke. When I see something like that, I feel diminished as a person. It makes me feel less like being human is a good thing. In other words, it makes me feel ashamed to be a human being. I think we can be so much better than that. But it will never happen if we as a society can't get beyond our prejudices and narrow minded teaching.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I resent being boiled down to "anti-gay". I resent it quite a bit. |
I'm sorry Jason, but I don't know what else to call it. Gay people want the same rights and liberties that others citizens enjoy. You, and a sizable segment of the rest of society, want to deny them those rights. Whether it's because of religion or any other reason, it's unjust and hurtful. If that's not anti-gay, what is it?
Anyway, I'm sorry if what I said upset you. Actually, including you in the question was intended more as a joke than anything else, even though you've been the most prolific poster for the "other" side in this thread. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I think you're generally a pretty decent guy. I am a little surprised to find you arguing what I consider to be the wrong side of such an important social issue, but that's beside the point. How about if I restate the question and leave you out of it? Like so...
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since some people appear to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that those people are somehow socially dysfunctional? |
Wasn't it your comment that was removed from another thread for referring to hot sluts and old, used-up sluts? If not, I apologise. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 11:17:14 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Mick:
I'm sorry Jason, but I don't know what else to call it. Gay people want the same rights and liberties that others citizens enjoy. You, and a sizable segment of the rest of society, want to deny them those rights. Whether it's because of religion or any other reason, it's unjust and hurtful. If that's not anti-gay, what is it? |
I'm not so sure you can characterize him as wanting to deny gay people rights. In fact, I think he even said the opposite.
Originally posted by Mick:
Anyway, I'm sorry if what I said upset you. Actually, including you in the question was intended more as a joke than anything else, even though you've been the most prolific poster for the "other" side in this thread. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I think you're generally a pretty decent guy. |
Wtf is with people falling over themselves apologizing for their views? If your views offend someone else, why are you responsible for that? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 11:32:41 PM · #241 |
| I apologize for saying sorry too often to people Louis. I feel really bad about it and hope you aren't offended. Again, I'm really sorry... |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 12:24:20 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Mick:
Anyway, I'm sorry if what I said upset you. Actually, including you in the question was intended more as a joke than anything else, even though you've been the most prolific poster for the "other" side in this thread. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I think you're generally a pretty decent guy. |
Wtf is with people falling over themselves apologizing for their views? If your views offend someone else, why are you responsible for that? |
I feel like this is partially in reference to my earlier post. I am unapologetic for apologizing to DrAchoo -- if you recall I apologized for ganging up on him, not for my views. Since you are always so adamant about proper debate, Louis, I would think you would understand my reason for that. I think I deserve an apology. (OK, maybe not -- sorry). |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 12:38:55 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I do have a problem when someone with a Same Sex Attraction disorder tries to change my believes... |
You have a twisted sense of justice. The articles you listed are all examples of actions taken against discrimination. It's like someone who believes blacks or Jews are inferior complaining that they're not allowed to practice their bigotry. :-/ |
The posted examples are religious institutions having to shutdown or make exceptions to people with this disorder. That's my concern. I would have to change my religion to allow something my religion thinks is incorrect. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 01:34:51 AM · #244 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The posted examples are religious institutions having to shutdown or make exceptions to people with this disorder. That's my concern. I would have to change my religion to allow something my religion thinks is incorrect. |
You can call it a disorder til the cows come home, but it doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 01:38:50 AM · #245 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I do have a problem when someone with a Same Sex Attraction disorder tries to change my believes... |
You have a twisted sense of justice. The articles you listed are all examples of actions taken against discrimination. It's like someone who believes blacks or Jews are inferior complaining that they're not allowed to practice their bigotry. :-/ |
The posted examples are religious institutions having to shutdown or make exceptions to people with this disorder. That's my concern. I would have to change my religion to allow something my religion thinks is incorrect. |
That's just ridiculous.
Your religion doesn't allow for others to believe and act differently than what you believe?
That's not religion, that's intolerance. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 06:32:30 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The posted examples are religious institutions having to shutdown or make exceptions to people with this disorder. That's my concern. I would have to change my religion to allow something my religion thinks is incorrect. |
Homosexuality is NOT a disorder.
That is an incorrect statement.
It is both ignorant and hurtful.
Message edited by author 2008-10-16 09:51:22. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 10:48:46 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Since society no longer views homosexuality as a disorder, and since some people appear to be anti-gay, doesn't that mean that those people are somehow socially dysfunctional? |
Society is in the middle of a transition, much like in 19th century America when the number of people who realized that slaves are people too reached a critical mass. Right now, it's okay for religious people to be anti-gay. Eventually, anti-gay religious people will be viewed the same way that racist religious people are now. Racism is no longer considered an essential part of any religion. Eventually, the same thing will be felt about homophobia. Religions change as society changes, or they die out. This is what history teaches us.
Message edited by author 2008-10-16 10:49:51. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 11:28:42 AM · #248 |
True. Unfortunately, the lemmings still 'follow the leader'.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2008 12:28:12 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Mick:
Anyway, I'm sorry if what I said upset you. Actually, including you in the question was intended more as a joke than anything else, even though you've been the most prolific poster for the "other" side in this thread. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I think you're generally a pretty decent guy. |
Wtf is with people falling over themselves apologizing for their views? If your views offend someone else, why are you responsible for that? |
I feel like this is partially in reference to my earlier post. I am unapologetic for apologizing to DrAchoo -- if you recall I apologized for ganging up on him, not for my views. Since you are always so adamant about proper debate, Louis, I would think you would understand my reason for that. I think I deserve an apology. (OK, maybe not -- sorry). |
No, not directed at you particularly, just that it irks me when someone puts forth a strong viewpoint, complete with strong language, then apologizes to some individual or other for having that viewpoint, even when there was no ad hominem involved. It weakens the current argument and all future positions. I just wish everyone had the courage of their own convictions, and didn't feel it necessary to apologize when someone gets their back up. No offence. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 01:20:22 PM · #250 |
It's a real shame that this homo won't be heard by those who need to hear him the most, because he's so darn disordered, and so easy to discount out of hand.
Who is trying to change your BELIEFS? Please notice that in almost every one of your examples, the religious group involved is engaged in a non-religious activity governed by LAW. The use of a public marina. Providing student housing. Adoption services.
Following those laws is the price you pay for tax exemption, business licences, and the like. If you you want to run a business, a school with access to the general public, or a service that recieves government aid, you obey the LAWS that come part and parcel with such contracts. If you don't want to follow those dictates, you have the CHOICE of simply NOT SIGNING THOSE CONTRACTS, doing something else, and believing whatever the hell you want, safe within the walls of your church.
But nooooo, the religious are simply unable to live and let live. They have to ENSURE, as much as possible, that others conform to their will, or face scorn, discrimination, retribution, banishment, supression, witch hunts, lynching, genocide... we have seen it over and over and over throughout history. It is an undeniable, incontrovertible urge (and often a clearly stated imperative!) on the part of those with "god on their side".
Oh pity the poor religious folk who have to live in a world where people differ from them, and god forbid they have to acknowledge that those differences exist. It's so much easier to just deny or exterminate, isn't it?
And on a final, depressing note...
It's so great to be compared to pedophiles and animal rapers again. Really. I just love that. I wonder if my brother and his wife (who happen to be visiting for my wedding) should keep me away from my two year old niece and 1/2 year old nephew, or if I should give my pug up for adoption. I'm in the same group of degenerate freaks, apparently. I can't see a compelling reason why they SHOULD let me own a dog or play with some of the most adorable little kids ever.
I am completely sickened. I hope it shows. |
|
