|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 9, 2010 2:23:26 GMT -5
I TOTALLY get what you mean. I am perfectly fine with ugly people. Unless they start hitting on me - that's just unacceptable.
/sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 9, 2010 2:28:15 GMT -5
As per the pedophilia vs. homosexuality debate:
Pedophilia is characterized by "recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies," among other things. Additionally, the urges are difficult, if not impossible, to resist. Some offenders have volunteered for medical castration in attempts to curb these urges, because they know what they do hurts people. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. A homosexual with the smallest amount of willpower would be able to resist sex.
And what's this about the "proper manner" to have sex? Are you serious? I suppose this means that straight people who engage in oral and/or anal sex are also suffering from mental disorders?
|
|
|
Post by icarus on Jul 9, 2010 9:32:26 GMT -5
I really don't understand the reason people have issue with it, let others do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 9, 2010 10:16:13 GMT -5
Even when it comes to the homosexuality vs Christianity: I have a really close friend who is probably the most devout Christian I've ever met, and he TOTALLY gets the whole Jesus thing. He says there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and its not as if he's gay and defending his position -- he's completely straight.
|
|
|
Post by velvetdivorce on Jul 9, 2010 18:01:08 GMT -5
^ Awesome. You don't need to be gay to be against the discrimination of homosexuals.
I think that if you *get* the idea of Christianity properly, you'd understand that a benevolent God does not, and could not, hate Homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 9, 2010 21:23:50 GMT -5
^ Awesome. You don't need to be gay to be against the discrimination of homosexuals. I think that if you *get* the idea of Christianity properly, you'd understand that a benevolent God does not, and could not, hate Homosexuals. Well nobody said that God hated homosexuals (well... maybe Fred Phelps did a couple million times). The common thing said by a lot of Christians is "love the sinner, hate the sin", then they continue to berate the homosexuals for "living in sin". My friend isn't like that. He hasn't once asked me about my sexual orientation or bothered me about it (though he knows about it). He figures, after listening to my ramblings regarding sexuality, that it isn't a choice, and so therefore it isn't sinful -- the opposite way from a lot of other Christians who say it's a sin and therefore it must be a choice. EDIT: I'm not sure how privacy-invading this post is getting. I suppose its just here for an example.
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 11, 2010 13:40:02 GMT -5
Krzych32, I completely agree with your assertion that sexual intercourse, while pleasurable and desirable as a proximate cause has reproduction as an ultimate cause (you didn't use this terminology, however these are the terms used in evolutionary psychology to describe what you've described). Is that grounds for declaring homosexuality a mental illness? No. Search around for academically accepted definitions and you'll find there is nothing inherent of homosexuality that inhibits ability to cope with life. Society not accepting homosexuality may, however, interfere with the ability of homosexuals to cope with life. The reason homosexuality was previously listed as a mental illness was because homosexuals were largely closeted and psychologists knew little about homosexuality outside of therapy sessions. When the error was realized, homosexuality was removed from the DSM. It was not a political decision, though it may have had political implications. I also checked your reference to ICD and searched the site and found this PDF. It says the following on homosexuality: You can search for every mention of homosexuality within the document (control+F "homosexuality") and you'll find that every sexual disorder listed involving homosexuality also includes heterosexual and bisexual coded listings (see "gender identity disorder). So I'm led to conclude that you either didn't understand what you read, you didn't actually read it, you read something outdated, or you're lying through your teeth. I don't believe you've said anything pertaining to homosexuals being less worthy of any rights than anyone else, which I find relieving and yet baffling: Why the fixation on homosexuals being "mentally ill" in the first place? For the record, if anyone is against gay marriage: Any title granted by the government must have secular purpose. Marriage cannot have an exclusively religious definition, nor can marriage be valid if it's Catholic, but shot down if it's Unitarian ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"). I say this because Unitarian Universalist Churches perform gay marriages and the Federal government cannot recognize marriages because they're Catholic while denying Unitarian marriages. Equal protection ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") holds that any right guaranteed to one class of persons must be guaranteed to all other persons. Marriage cannot be a man and a woman, but only a person and a person, because this would require legal distinction of men and women, which is unconstitutional. Saying that "abstract symmetry" (people can be literally different but not legally different) isn't guaranteed is a huge erosion of civil rights, and to define marriage as "a legal union to encourage the procreation and rearing of one's own genetic children" has obvious flaws: Why are the financial rights of marriage granted to couples without their own genetic children? Why should infertile couples (including the elderly) be granted the right to marry? The only consistent answer anyone seems to come up with is "Because homosexuality is immoral," which is a personal opinion that shouldn't have any bearing on civil rights.
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 11, 2010 22:46:09 GMT -5
low, I think I love you. That was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 11, 2010 23:02:06 GMT -5
low, well, if what I said would be widely accepted, then it wouldn't be radical But seriously, I'm sure there are papers out there addressing my points, its just that I haven't read them yet (most likely never will). To tell you the truth its not even a subject that I care for very deeply, but this is a debate setting, so I act accordingly. At the same time I don't know if just saying that i am wrong because most of the scientific community things otherwise is the best way to debate, we could do the same in most of the threads. It would be much more interesting to see someone to addressing my concerns. If we are to sit around this topic only to all agree with each other what was the point of creating it in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 12, 2010 8:04:58 GMT -5
low, well, if what I said would be widely accepted, then it wouldn't be radical But seriously, I'm sure there are papers out there addressing my points, its just that I haven't read them yet (most likely never will). To tell you the truth its not even a subject that I care for very deeply, but this is a debate setting, so I act accordingly. At the same time I don't know if just saying that i am wrong because most of the scientific community things otherwise is the best way to debate, we could do the same in most of the threads. It would be much more interesting to see someone to addressing my concerns. If we are to sit around this topic only to all agree with each other what was the point of creating it in the first place? If you think you can effectively prove otherwise, then you're free to do so, but you need evidence in your favor in order to convince anyone. The definition of "mental illness," however, is terms that may be subjective to others, but has a scientific denotation mainly consistent in all academic circles which prevents this confusion. Science ensures that it has very strong agreed upon operational definitions of words when making claims (including "theory" which is used by common people in a way more similar to the way scientists use the word "hypothesis"). Most debates, in my opinion, aren't limited to things that are questions of fact. I know "evolution vs. creationism" is a common debate, but, it's absolutely terrible "debate" because it's something with overwhelming evidence on one side and no evidence at all on the other side. Were the creationist side to gather any evidence at all, it might have some clout in a debate, but, otherwise, it's disrespectful to logic, reason, rationality, sanity, and sound judgment to entertain the notion that creationism has any place anywhere in academic thought. Most debates tend to have an affirmative and a negative public policy action, debating not something which can be shown true or false, but something which weighs pro and con. Certainly having facts which can be shown true have more clout in a pro-con debate than those which cannot, but the question tends to be "is it worth this?"
|
|
lupin
Meteorite
boom boom
Posts: 42
|
Post by lupin on Jul 16, 2010 0:49:48 GMT -5
well i live in a very homophobic country (catholic monopoly + idiotic government + we got owned by spain + low education rate= trolland) and even tough i am 100% ok with homosexuality, i cant openly defend my position, cause thats a sure way to be called fagot all your life.
P.D: pepole use: cause its gay. as an argument WTF DOES THAT MEAN?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Aug 4, 2010 19:06:23 GMT -5
Good news: Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional! GAY RIGHTS FTW!
|
|
|
Post by Benyamin on Aug 4, 2010 19:19:29 GMT -5
In sort of a succinct and basic view on the subject. I am a Christian and it is biblically incorrect for people to be homosexual. I am however okay with it. It does not bother me in anyway, and my oldest sister is a lesbian, so I am around it every day. I find it unfathomable how people can argue so long about such a mundane thing as this. It has existed for years and I find it hard to believe that now, of all times in history, people are beginning to have a problem with it. Except Muslims, they stone homosexuals, which even for most Christians is extreme behavior. this
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Aug 4, 2010 19:25:37 GMT -5
In sort of a succinct and basic view on the subject. I am a Christian and it is biblically incorrect for people to be homosexual. I am however okay with it. It does not bother me in anyway, and my oldest sister is a lesbian, so I am around it every day. I find it unfathomable how people can argue so long about such a mundane thing as this. It has existed for years and I find it hard to believe that now, of all times in history, people are beginning to have a problem with it. Except Muslims, they stone homosexuals, which even for most Christians is extreme behavior. Correction: crazy people stone homosexuals, not Muslims.
|
|
thelighterdark
Planet
"Get busy living, or get busy dying." - Andy Dufresne [Tim Robbins], The Shawshawnk Redemption, 1994
Posts: 374
|
Post by thelighterdark on Aug 6, 2010 2:17:29 GMT -5
My sister is actually a lesbian. Real deal.
From what she's told me, she has no control over it. It wasn't a choice she made to be sexually and mentally attracted to other women, it has always been a part of her since she discovered sexuality, which, according to her, was when she was 9.
I of course am straight, but totally open and not ignorant to those who are different.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Aug 6, 2010 17:52:21 GMT -5
Correction: crazy people stone homosexuals, not Muslims. That might be true about stoning but it's against the law to be homosexual in the majority of Muslim countries. It's punishable by death to be homosexual in 8 countries in the world, they're all Muslim. Good example is Nigeria, in the south there is a Christian majority and although homosexuality is against the law it's usually "only" a prison sentence or a large fine. But in the north there is a Muslim majority and there being homosexual carries the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by _nderscore on Aug 6, 2010 22:33:39 GMT -5
I voted no.
|
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Aug 7, 2010 2:12:19 GMT -5
homosexuality is something ur born with you are either gay or straight thts just how it goes. you cant be straight fora 20 years of ur life and switch to homosexuality. You aren't born with a sexual preference. Also, some people do chance in their life. My mom's side of the family has quite the history of being straight, then gay, then straight again, etc. That'd be called bisexuality. You can't change your sexual preference. If you fall in love with both genders, it's called bisexuality. I peronally believe everyone is bisexual.. Love is such a delicate thing that I don't think you can eliminate half of the world population just because you're supposed to be hetero or homo - maybe eliminating that special one for you. Oh, and _nderscore, if you really want to get into this community and help us out, you should provide a little more background information on why and how. Just posting "Me not like" is not going to help anyone.
|
|
|
Post by swiftthefox15 on Aug 7, 2010 22:47:03 GMT -5
Im ok with anyone except for people who are prejudice towards other people. Plus im Bi-Curious so there
|
|
|
Post by iloveoscar on Aug 7, 2010 22:49:51 GMT -5
its nasty if yaall know wut i mean lol.
|
|