Your view on gay marraige/adoption

[ZeroMalarki]

Personally, whilst I have no problem with gay people, I'm not sure if I think gay marraige should come with all the benefits that a regular heterosexual relationship should. I'll come back later with an explanation for that view point, I'll discuss adoption better now though.

Gays should be allowed to adopt, but they should be at the bottom of the priority list. Most kids come out a helluva lot better in a nuclear family, with a role model of each gender, statistics support this.

[Struwwelpeter]

Most kids come out a helluva lot better in a nuclear family, with a role model of each gender, statistics support this.

Then why must you say it is acceptable for them to adopt children; faggot-enabler?

[Some Old Drunk Guy]

1.) gay people are human beings, they're born with the right to get married to the one they love. Who are you, me, or some dick in a suit and a pen, to deny them that right just because they're "different"?

2.) Gays should have an equal opportunity to adopt. I know someone who was adopted by gay people and he's perfectly fine.

[Yggdrasil]

I've been thinking that, if possible, a gay couple (one of the guys, anyways) could perhaps have their sperm mixed with the egg of a female donor and left inside of her for maturation. This female would almost certainly be a family friend or something though. I've been giving that some thought, dunno. While I personally like children, I don't think it's right for to feign a lifetime of heterosexuality just to marry and have them.

[InspiredByMe]

1.) gay people are human beings, they're born with the right to get married to the one they love. Who are you, me, or some dick in a suit and a pen, to deny them that right just because they're "different"?

2.) Gays should have an equal opportunity to adopt. I know someone who was adopted by gay people and he's perfectly fine.

This.

[Slave of the Beast]

I know someone who was adopted by gay people and he's perfectly fine.

I know someone whose grandmother smoked 20 a day from the age of 15 and lived to 87. It therefore follows that smoking is perfectly fine for everyone.

[Struwwelpeter]

Gay marriage and gay adoption are a form of both feminism and misanthropy; they are an allocation of privileges to a group of people who both have no use and no business touting them, they are superficial, useless albeit dangerous rights that ultimately result in devastating consequences for children and society.

[Vox Ducis]

If homosexuals want children, they can, like anybody else.

I know a guy who is openly gay. He surprised everybody a few years ago when he got married and had two children. Now he's divorced and gay "again". He just wanted to have children. He didn't complain about gay marriage or adoption.

In Japan, it's common for gays to marry lesbians and have a child together.

[SHANE14]

Gay marriage and gay adoption are a form of both feminism and misanthropy; they are an allocation of privileges to a group of people who both have no use and no business touting them, they are superficial, useless albeit dangerous rights that ultimately result in devastating consequences for children and society.

spot on IMO

[Slapshot]

1.) gay people are human beings, they're born with the right to get married to the one they love. Who are you, me, or some dick in a suit and a pen, to deny them that right just because they're "different"?

Nobody is stopping gays from performing a ceremony and calling it marriage. Gays can get "married" all they want. What they're pissing and moaning about is nothing that can't be solved by appointing a power of attorney or writing a will.

Just like the "hate crimes" laws, this is nothing more than a play to get more than they deserve. Why is it more of a crime to assault somebody for being gay than it is to assault somebody because they have something you want? Special laws for certain groups of people = BULLSHIT.

[Euliyae]

Gays are no different than any other human. They eat, sleep, breathe and love. However, they just choose to love differently. So why discriminate against love? By not allowing them the rights to adopt, children are left for longer without families. Gays are just as capable of raising a child as straights. My one friend left her mother and father to live with her gay uncle and he raised her better than her parents.

[Struwwelpeter]

Children cannot develop healthily without a mother and a father; they both provide very important stimulus during the developing years that cannot be replicated by two fathers or two mothers, furthermore faggots do not engage in love but a form of self-hatred and narcissism, they are statistically shown to be less mentally stable, they are not like straight people at all and their relationships can never be anything like that of the standard nuclear family.

[Euliyae]

Children develop as a result of nurture and nature. If there is love and nurture the requirements can be fulfilled.
You are not suited to argue on behalf of the homosexual mind as you are clearly heterosexual with a very high opinion of your intellect.

[Mantikore]

ive always wondered that if adopted children from gay parents living in were a commune, were multiple women and men take care of each other's children. If they consisted of gay couples, how would that differ to a nuclear family?

[ants in my poptarts]

Children cannot develop healthily without a mother and a father; they both provide very important stimulus during the developing years that cannot be replicated by two fathers or two mothers, furthermore faggots do not engage in love but a form of self-hatred and narcissism, they are statistically shown to be less mentally stable, they are not like straight people at all and their relationships can never be anything like that of the standard nuclear family.

Stop making idiotic claims you can't support.

[xilikeeggs0]

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I don't know about gay adoption. I think that everyone should have a right to adopt a child if they're qualified, but like somebody else said, gays should be at the bottom of the list.

I know of a guy who is gay, and his partner was married and had kids at one point. They got custody of the kids, and the guy (not the kids' father, his boyfriend) does some fucking insane shit to them. Like one of the kids wet the bed, so he pissed on the kid and made the kid sleep in his own piss as well as the guy's piss all night to 'teach him a lesson.' Fuckers like that shouldn't be allowed to have kids, whether straight or gay, but you have to wonder if him doing that was really supposed to be punishment, or if it was just some freaky sexual fantasy he had about dominating a young boy.

[Struwwelpeter]

Stop making idiotic claims you can't support.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/mental_ill.htm

Are homosexuals mentally ill?

N.E.Whitehead

This was published in another form in the NARTH bulletin 11(2):25-28, 2002



Summary: Most homosexuals are not mentally ill. However, recent studies show homosexuals are at much greater risk than heterosexuals, particularly for substance abuse, suicide, depression, bulimia and antisocial personality disorder. This paper highlights some new and significant points in those papers, and also argues that some more extreme forms of homosexual behavior are in themselves a mental illness, though not by present DSM criteria. Those showing such behaviors are the people least likely to present themselves as clients for therapy.



In spite of substantial protest (see for example Socarides, 1995) the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973. The APA , reasonably enough, wanted to reduce the damaging rejection suffered by homosexuals, but one effect of their action has been to add the authority of the APA to the activist claim that homosexuals are mentally healthy.

Gonsiorek (1982) in a review argued there were no data showing mental health differences between gays and straights (or if there were it was society’s fault). Similarly Ross (1988) in a cross-cultural study found most gays were in the normal psychological range.

However some papers gave hints of inherent psychiatric differences between homosexual and heterosexual. One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological measurement, and found that homosexuals showed definite “personal and emotional oversensitivity”.

Similarly (Kalichman et al. 1992) another study showed that when using the MMPI, one cluster of results was typical of homosexuals – it included a “psychopathological deviate”. In 1991 the complete normality of homosexuality was still being defended (Gonsiorek, 1991) in a paper called “The empirical basis for the demise of the mental illness model”. Apparently it was not completely dead even 18 years after the APA decision. Only in 1992 was homosexuality dropped from the International Classification of Diseases (King and Bartlett, 1999) so, either inertia, or doubt held the decision up for nearly two decades for the rest of the world.

Are homosexuals mentally normal? Clinicians and researchers approached the problem of normality from opposite ends. In the words of Bailey (1999) "Gay people undergoing therapy seemed dysfunctional while volunteers [for surveys] from homophile organizations seemed well". Strong self-selection occurred in both cases.

Good random samples of homosexual people and studies of their mental health were needed, and such surveys are now increasingly available.

One earlier important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were about 6x normal (Remafedi et al. 1998). New studies show increased psychopathology. Recently in the Archives of General Psychiatry, an old and well-respected journal, three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999). Bailey’s conclusion in that commentary was "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence…" "The strength of the new studies is their degree of control".

The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times as likely to show suicide-related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Bearing in mind the rule of thumb for surveys that a factor of 2 higher is probably not significant, but a factor of 3 probably is, we see that a factor of 5.1 is highly significant. However some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, thought to be independent of homosexuality. When these were allowed for, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still probably significant, but less so. The authors therefore believed there was an independent suicide factor probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself.

The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties (hence almost certainly freeing it from most biases which bedevil surveys). It showed significantly increased occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those homosexually active. A new point was that their parents had often been convicted of criminal offenses.

The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) again showing increased mental health problems, but remarkably HIV status was not a factor. People who are HIV positive should at least have anxiety as a diagnosable mental problem! The paper suggested without being dogmatic that pressure from society causes mental health problems (even in the Netherlands) and HIV status does not. That seems very unlikely in Holland's the liberal climate, and suggests pressure from society must be a very minor factor. At least three issues arising from the studies were mentioned in the commentaries.

Association of mental health problems with homosexuality

First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are associated with homosexuality and this supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological? That must be argued another way. The papers do give evidence that since only a minority of a non-clinical sample of homosexuals have any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria) not all homosexuals are "mentally ill". In New Zealand conditions for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over their lifespan, never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover, 2000, Welch et al. 2000). There are similar US results.

The suicide connection

Second, do the papers show that the lifestyle itself or pressures from society lead to suicide? They showed that neither inevitably led to suicide. The homosexual Vietnam veterans showed a greater rate of suicide attempts associated with homosexuality itself, but obviously not all attempted suicide. To measure the pressures from society, it is worth remembering that Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that when the reasons were homosexuality-related, about 2/3 were due to break ups of relationships, not outside pressures from society. Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) found the major reason for suicide attempts was breakup of relationships, and, second, the inability to accept oneself. So the homosexual equivalent of Romeo and Juliet is a major factor in suicide attempts. Since homosexuals have increased numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals it is not surprising that suicide attempts are proportionally higher. Perhaps it is coincidence but the median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994), and a good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are similarly about three times higher.

Another factor in suicide attempts is the compulsive or addictive element in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989), with addiction itself leading to feelings of depression because the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some (as many as 50% of young homosexual men today), who take no precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) who have considerable addictive problems, and this also feeds into suicide attempts.

The effect of pressures from society

Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less than one might imagine. The Netherlands authors were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people because they thought tolerance to gay people was greater in the Netherlands than almost all other countries. Another test country is New Zealand. Although suicide attempts were common in the New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as US results, New Zealand is much more tolerant of homosexuality than the United States, and legislation giving the movement rights is powerful, enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Ross (1988) in his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the United States, Netherlands and Denmark - which have very different attitudes to homosexuality - found similar mental health problems and concluded these might arise from a mistaken homosexual impression of public hostility, but it could be argued that this mistaken impression is almost a mental health problem in its own right. This again suggests societal hostility to homosexuality is not closely tied to homosexual mental health.

Other related issues

There are three other issues not covered in the Archives papers which are important. The first two are DSM category diagnoses.

Antisocial aspects

Ellis et al. (1995) examining patients at a clinic that focused on genital and urological problems found 38% of homosexual men had antisocial personality disorder, compared with 28% for heterosexual men. The difference was very highly significant and both were enormously higher than the 2% for the general population and approaching the 50% for prison inmates (Matthews 1997). In other words the promiscuous (heterosexual or homosexual) are often quite antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997); “…the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes”. This conflicts with Bailey’s commentary which predicted a rather low rate of antisocial personality disorder for men. However the finding of increased conduct disorder in the New Zealand study foreshadowed this. Therapists are not very likely to see a large number of those who are homosexual and chronically antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.

Eating disorders

Secondly, it was previously noted (Carlat et al. 1997) that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual, a rate about 15 times higher than expected, and meaning homosexual men were disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This probably arises from the very strong preoccupation with appearance and figure frequently found among male homosexuals.

Core gay ideology

The third issue is not a DSM diagnosis. However a strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself in its most extreme form is a mental disturbance. As described by Rotello (op. cit.), the theoretical core of gay ideology is that same-sex sexual behavior is the central value of all existence, and transcending everything else - nothing else may be allowed to interfere with it. According to its theoreticians if homosexual promiscuity has produced AIDS (as it has in the West) that is unfortunate, but must not be allowed to interfere with the lifestyle. The condom code is a very reluctant concession to a major threat (you have to go on living to continue same-sex practices!). If someone wholehearterdly believes homosexuality is paramount, this will produce some very bizarre conclusions. For example according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibilty not to infect others with the HIV virus is a completely foreign concept to many groups trying to counter AIDS, and is avoided in most official condom promotion (France in the ‘80s was an interesting exception). Although the risks of HIV transference are practically universally known, many gay people wave them aside. Bluntly, core gay behavior is often suicidal.

In spite of its difficult problems, life is complex, amazing, stimulating and worthwhile. I regard it as mentally disturbed behaviour to risk life for the core ideal of homosexuality. There is quite a good case that some male homosexuality falls in this category since at least 20% of male homosexuals still regularly risk their lives with unsafe sex, one of the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have so far not found any similar-sized group prepared to risk such a high rate of death. In its most extreme form then, I think homosexuality is a mental illness in its own right, but few therapists will see clients in that category because such clients will have already taken their first steps away by concluding that the lifestyle is not their fundamental ideal. However therapists should check for some of the other mental problems which are associated with the lifestyle, and refer clients as necessary.

In conclusion, if we ask the question “Are homosexuals mentally ill?” the answer at this point would have to be “You will need to check case by case, and see”.



Return to top



References

Anon. (1995): Lesbians use more mental health care. The Dominion (NZ) Nov 1, 14.

Bailey,J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56, 876-880.

Bell,A.P.; Weinberg,M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among Men And Women. Simon and Schuster New York. 491 pages.

Carlat,D.J.Camargo, C.A.; Herzog,D.B. (1997): Eating disorders in males: a report on 135 patients. Am. J. Psychiatry 154, 1127-1132.

Ellis,D; Collis,I; King,M (1995): Personality disorder and sexual risk taking among homosexually active and heterosexually active men attending a genito-urinary medicine clinic. J. Psychosom. Res. 39, 901-910

Fergusson,D.M.; Horwood,L.J.; Beautrais,A.L. (1999): Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 56, 876-880.

Gonsiorek,J.C. (1982): Results of psychological testing on homosexual populations. In: Homosexuality. Social, Psychological and Biological Issues. (Eds: Paul,W.; Weinrich,J.D.; Gonsiorek,J.C.; Hotvedt M.E ) Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 71-80.

Gonsiorek,J.C. (1991): The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In: Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. (Eds: Gonsiorek,J.; Weinrich,J.D.) Sage, 115-136.

Herrell,R.; Goldberg,J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan,V.; Lyons,M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang,M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.

Kalichman S.C.; Dwyer,M.; Henderson,M.C.; Hoffman,L. (1992): Psychological and sexual functioning among outpatient sexual offenders against children: a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) cluster analytic study. J. Psychopath. Behav. Assess. 14, 259-276.

King,M.; Bartlett,A. (1999): British psychiatry and homosexuality. Brit. J. Psychiatry. 175, 106-113.

Laumann, E.O.; Gagnon, J.H.; Michael, R.T.; Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 718 pp

Matthews,R. (1997): Game theory backs crackdown on petty crime. New Scientist 156(2078), 18.

Pincu,L. (1989): Sexual compulsivity in gay men: controversy and treatment. J. Couns. Dev. 68(1), 63-66.

Remafedi,G.; French,S.; Story,M.; Resnick,M.D.; Blum,R. (1998): The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. Am. J. Publ. Health 88, 57-60.

Riess,B. (1980): Psychological tests in homosexuality. In: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Appraisal. (Ed: Macmor,J.) Basic Books, New York, 298-311.

Ross,M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex.. 15(1/2), 131-152.

Rotello,G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK, 320 pages.

Saghir,M.T.; Robins,E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland, 335 pages.

Sandfort,T.G.M.; de Graaf,R.; Bijl,R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.

Saphira, M.; Glover,M. (2000): New Zealand lesbian health survey. J. Gay Lesb. Med. Ass. 4, 49-56.

Seligman,M.E.P. (1975): Helplessness - On Depression, Development And Death. Freeman, London. 250 pages.

Socarides,C.W. (1995): Homosexuality. A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Arizona. 321 pages.

Valleroy,L.A; Secura,G.; Mackellor,D.; Behel,S. (2001): High HIV and risk behavior prevalence among 23- to 29-year-old men who have sex with men, in 6 U.S. Cities. Poster 211 at 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, Feb. 2001. http://64.58.70.224/2001/posters/211.pdf.

Welch,S.; Collings,S.C.D.; Howden-Chapman,P. (2000): Lesbians in New Zealand: their mental health and satisfaction with mental health services. Aust. N.Z.J. Psychiatry 34, 256-263.

Whitehead, N.E.;Whitehead, B.K. (1999):My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Lafayette, Louisiana, 233pp

Fuck off you gay ass faggot.

[Silverfuck]

There are degenerates and morons of every sexual orientation. Anyone who will be a capable and able parent should be able to have a child. End of story.

I refuse to accept that some straight people can have children even though they will be horrible parents, but a couple who would raise a child properly can't just because they are gay.

[Dog]

1) The gay marriage debate is stupid. It isn't anyone's business if a gay couple wants to get married, and the "sanctity" of marriage already gets violated by the nearly 50% of Americans who get divorced anyways.

2) The only potential issue I'd have with gay adoption is the effect it could have on the kid. I don't think any research has been done on the topic, but that would be my only concern. If results show that it doesn't matter, then they can adopt away.

EDIT: Silverfuck makes a good point though. If two straight, abusive idiots want to have a kid, they can do so whenever they want, however many times they want. However, if a gay household did negatively affect a child, it's something that society can avoid, so they should avoid it. I doubt there many consequences of a gay household (kids get teased all the time for a number of things, and it isn't as though people become gay because of their parents), but I would like to see some results in studies in the future.

[ants in my poptarts]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/mental_ill.htm



Fuck off you gay ass faggot.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869
This is 18 years old and it only involved 137 people.

In conclusion, if we ask the question “Are homosexuals mentally ill?” the answer at this point would have to be “You will need to check case by case, and see”.

Wow so... this supports my stance. Thanks moron. If you have to judge it on a case by case basis then a law that lumps all homosexuals together is innapropriate. How about these points? Have any evidence for them?

Children cannot develop healthily without a mother and a father

they both provide very important stimulus during the developing years that cannot be replicated by two fathers or two mothers

furthermore faggots do not engage in love but a form of self-hatred and narcissism

they are not like straight people at all and their relationships can never be anything like that of the standard nuclear family.

You sure do have a lot of insight on homosexual relationships.

[Butcher]

I've got nothing against gay marriage in particular, I'm against marriage in general, as well as adoption. People shouldn't be able to get benefits of any kind for being married, the state shouldn't even recognize marriage since its a religious ceremony. As for adoption, people should only take care of the children that sprung forth from their loins, unwanted children should be incinerated.

[supperrfreek]

When it comes down to it this is an issue which will need to be decided by ballot initiatives. Let the people pick and choose.
I personally support gay marriage and adoption but do not believe we should twist people's arms to make it happen. It will come about slowly and the people will have less resistance to it (much like how the government takes away other rights- slowly and quietly).
Supposedly even the bible doesn't have much to say on the issue. I know the 6 passages which are usually brought up and guess what http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html#Leviticus18:22

[Struwwelpeter]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869
This is 18 years old and it only involved 137 people.

Congratulations motherfucker, you have been awarded the Order of Darwin.



Wow so... this supports my stance. Thanks moron. If you have to judge it on a case by case basis then a law that lumps all homosexuals together is innapropriate. How about these points? Have any evidence for them?

It does not support your points; we know that the majority of homosexuals in any given population are going to be more mentally ill than heterosexuals, the question has never been whether or not homosexuals are mentally ill, but rather, whether or not the majority of them are, and if you go back and read my post, perhaps aloud a few times, you will see this is exactly what I said. If the majority of homosexuals are mentally ill, we do need to enact law that prevents them from obtaining children or marrying, as this behavior not only endangers the mental and physical health of the adopted children, it says to society that it's okay to accept a group of people who are mentally unstable. Anything else is senseless, irrational action. I am done trying to explain this to you, for you are a homosexual, and there is clearly no point trying to explain to you that you are wrong, and that you are misguided. Nothing will change your mind. I am not going to waste my time picking more sources for you, because you will never accept them, and it's something you can find via a three minute google search. You are not one to criticize me for picking points to argue; your best argument against my utterly devastating post, which destroyed everything the fag-enablers could ever argue for, was that one of the links was to a source that is 18 years old and it involved a [great] number of people. Once again, fuck off, you faggot enabler, you social degenerate. I can only hope you or someone who supports what you have to say will die today, for you are a detriment to society.

[ants in my poptarts]

Congratulations motherfucker, you have been awarded the Order of Darwin.

What?

It does not support your points; we know that the majority of homosexuals in any given population are going to be more mentally ill than heterosexuals, the question has never been whether or not homosexuals are mentally ill, but rather, whether or not the majority of them are, and if you go back and read my post, perhaps aloud a few times, you will see this is exactly what I said.


Don't worry i know what your saying. And what I'm saying is if homosexuality is not synonomous with mental illness, it's not a valid criteria for barring them to adopt. The mentally ill should not be allowed to adopt, but just being a homosexual does not garantee mental illness. Which is the conclusion of the source YOU posted.



If the majority of homosexuals are mentally ill, we do need to enact law that prevents them from obtaining children or marrying, as this behavior not only endangers the mental and physical health of the adopted children, it says to society that it's okay to accept a group of people who are mentally unstable.

If the majority of homosexuals are mentally ill, then you have nothing to worry about. No adoption agency is going to give a child to someone with a mental illness. But for the homosexuals out there that are not mentally ill, you have given no good reason to keep them from adopting.

Anything else is senseless, irrational action. I am done trying to explain this to you, for you are a homosexual, and there is clearly no point trying to explain to you that you are wrong, and that you are misguided.

I'm sorry your losing, no reason to get upset.

Nothing will change your mind. I am not going to waste my time picking more sources for you, because you will never accept them, and it's something you can find via a three minute google search.

This is the second time you have refused to back up your claims in an arguement with me. If you are going to make a claim support it. Your excuses are pathetic.


You are not one to criticize me for picking points to argue; your best argument against my utterly devastating post, which destroyed everything the fag-enablers could ever argue for, was that one of the links was to a source that is 18 years old and it involved a [great] number of people.

Wow you sure did devestate me with that post. 137 people is not a large enough group to show an accurate representation of mental health for the millions of homosexuals in the world. Even accepting that source, all you did was show statistically homosexuals show a tendoncy for mental health problems. Which does not mean being a homosexual garantees mental illness. What is there to argue? Those links were irrelevent. Unless you can prove that homosexuality garantees mental illness you can't use it as criteria for barring adoption.

Children cannot develop healthily without a mother and a father; they both provide very important stimulus during the developing years that cannot be replicated by two fathers or two mothers.

Now this would be a great reason to not allow gays to adopt, if you could support it.

[Struwwelpeter]

If the majority of homosexuals are mentally ill, then you have nothing to worry about. No adoption agency is going to give a child to someone with a mental illness.

Bullshit, just look at the foster care system in this nation. There is significant evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason it isn't on the books anymore is political correctness. Homosexuals are by and large mentally unstable and thus they should all be prohibited from adopting children, for if a trend exists anyone can have it any any potential abuse of the system could send children to a home where they will be fucked for life. What you are saying is like suggesting that felons should be able to procure firearms given that some of them manage not to become repeat offenders; you have to have a law that protects the majority and discriminates against the minority, the occurrence of individuals can not be considered under practical law. I will not further degrade myself by talking to someone who has the vocabulary and the grammatical capacity I had in the third grade.

[Valkoinen Kuolema]

1. Gay marriage is a joke, next you'll want to marry your dog/panzerkampfwagen/sister.

2. No, homosexuality is a mental illness and goes against a humans function. Would you let a psychopath paedophile adopt a child?

[Irukanji]

Just like the "hate crimes" laws, this is nothing more than a play to get more than they deserve. Why is it more of a crime to assault somebody for being gay than it is to assault somebody because they have something you want? Special laws for certain groups of people = BULLSHIT.

This. I hate that nigger down the road cause he sits on his ass all day and gets welfare. If i steal his T.V(omg? probably mine anyway), it's a hate crime. If he steals mine, it's "omg these poor niggers cant afford a tv, cant earn enough, etc, etv"

You beat up a fag for being a fag it's a hate crime. He beats you up,(LOL!!), nothing happens(cause you got bashed by a fag, and you aint gonna tell.)

If a man and woman want to have a child, find. Natural. If 2 guys want to have a kid, then get fucked. You cant turn his asshole into a uterus. And im sure as fuck he doesnt want a kid popping out his cock.

Why cant people either remain single, or be with a person of the OPPOSITE sex. Fucking faggots. Faggots should /wrists and die, cry babies.

1. Gay marriage is a joke, next you'll want to marry your dog/panzerkampfwagen/sister.

2. No, homosexuality is a mental illness and goes against a humans function. Would you let a psychopath paedophile adopt a child?

1. Joke. The did it for the lulz.

2. Nope, but in Arabia they just marry them(the pedo and the child). Sick fucking arabs.

you have to have a law that protects the majority and discriminates against the minority, the occurrence of individuals can not be considered under practical law.

Fucking this. Sadly, it is the opposite. Ignore the majority, and make special laws for minorities. Ideally, hitler should still be around, killing the gays. He made a mistake. He should've invited all the gays to germany, then gassed them all. Win/win.

[ants in my poptarts]

Bullshit, just look at the foster care system in this nation.

So you want a better foster care system? I don't see how homosexuality is relevent.

There is significant evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

THEN FUCKING POST SOME.

The only reason it isn't on the books anymore is political correctness. Homosexuals are by and large mentally unstable and thus they should all be prohibited from adopting children, for if a trend exists anyone can have it any any potential abuse of the system could send children to a home where they will be fucked for life.


What was that about 3rd grade grammer?

What you are saying is like suggesting that felons should be able to procure firearms given that some of them manage not to become repeat offenders;

No I'm not. When you commit a felony in this country you can't do certain things. Now I'm not a lawyer but i don't think homosexuality is a felony.

you have to have a law that protects the majority and discriminates against the minority, the occurrence of individuals can not be considered under practical law.

Adoption agencies and foster care are not the same thing. It's much harder to adopt. Someone with a dangerous mental illness will not be allowed to adopt, under the correct use of the laws. Prove homosexuality garantees mental illness.

I will not further degrade myself by talking to someone who has the vocabulary and the grammatical capacity I had in the third grade

This is getting old. Insulting me doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look desperate.

[whimsi]

Any couple, regardless of gender, sex or sexual orientation should be able to adopt a child, but they should be held to the same standards as any other couple wishing to adopt (which, imo, the standards are pretty fucking lax, since ever adopted kid I know seems to be fucked up in one way or another moreso than non-adopted kids)

[xilikeeggs0]

Fucking this. Sadly, it is the opposite. Ignore the majority, and make special laws for minorities. Ideally, hitler should still be around, killing the gays. He made a mistake. He should've invited all the gays to germany, then gassed them all. Win/win.

What good would that do? They're not going to go extinct. In case you haven't noticed, gays generally don't reproduce.

[Irukanji]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#Psychological_functio ning

Mother fucker what?
Suicide: Gay and bisexual male youths are over 13 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual male youths.[5] No such difference was found between lesbian and straight female youths.[6] Gay and lesbian youth who attempt suicide are disproportionately subject to anti-gay attitudes, and have weaker skills for coping with discrimination, isolation, and loneliness, than those who do not attempt suicide.[1][7]

Thats mental illness, dumb shit.

* Psychiatric disorders: In a Dutch study, gay men reported significantly higher mood and anxiety disorders than straight men, and lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression (but not other mood or anxiety disorders) than straight women.[8] This difference may be caused by the stresses gay and lesbian people face stemming from anti-gay attitudes. However, a Netherlands study (where homosexuality is much more widely accepted than that in the U.S.) shows that mental health problems in homosexuals are still much higher than in heterosexuals, despite the more tolerant society.[9] [1]


Same thing.

They want to be gay, but they CANT HANDLE IT. Their like "well, i wanna be gay but no1 likes me now ~/wrists~"

[Irukanji]

What good would that do? They're not going to go extinct. In case you haven't noticed, gays generally don't reproduce.

I'm implying that people who cant see other gays wont be gay. Having gay parents will make you several times more likely to be GAY. Yes, that right. After they use a surrogate mother, the child will grow up with only gay men. 2 guys kissing, holding hands, sucking cock, maybe in front of the kid. The kid will see this and be like "hey, this must be normal" etc etc. Look at black kids. their parents go to jail for burglary, and most of them end up in gangs, burgling houses and end up in jail. Just like their parents.

Look back at your childhood and think about what you learnt just by watching your parent/s.

Notice something happening here?

[ants in my poptarts]

Thats mental illness, dumb shit.


No, it's a predisposition to mental illness. If they have said mental illness they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

[Irukanji]

No, it's a predisposition to mental illness. If they have said mental illness they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Im not implying they were going to adopt. Im implying that they, as the link states, are 13 times MORE likely to do it[suicide]. Which means they have something wrong with their brains from the start. Most people are normal, i.e. their perfectly straight and never think of killing themselves. The gays seem to be the opposite. Am i right?

Predisposition to a mental illness, even though your implying they were born perfectly normal? Doesnt seem that way. Seems like they were already going to be gay from the start.

[ants in my poptarts]

Im not implying they were going to adopt. Im implying that they, as the link states, are 13 times MORE likely to do it. Which means they have something wrong with their brains from the start. Most people are normal, i.e. their perfectly straight and never think of killing themselves. The gays seem to be the opposite. Am i right?

The possibility of mental illness doesn't imply a defect. Humans in general have a possibility for mental illness. Does that mean there is something wrong with all humans, with the human brain? It's not like there is some demographic thats immune to mental illness, so that arguement won't work. So no, you aren't right.

Predisposition to a mental illness, even though your implying they were born perfectly normal? Doesnt seem that way. Seems like they were already going to be gay from the start


Yea, i think gay/straight does have roots at birth. But there is also evidence that there are environmental influences. But nurture/nature is an arguement thats been around for a long time and there is no answer to.

[jheit8]

I think homosexuals should only be able to adopt children of the opposite gender, and only children above the age of 12, so then little 6-year-old Billy doesn't think that homosexuality is normal or socially acceptable. I also think that if homosexuals marry they should be barred from ever having children, so then little Bobby doesn't want to be just like daddy and marry some other homosexual.
If that happens, this world will soon be full of homos, and heterosexuals will be the minority.
Then we're all fucked.

[Irukanji]

Yea, i think gay/straight does have roots at birth. But there is also evidence that there are environmental influences. But nurture/nature is an arguement thats been around for a long time and there is no answer to.

So you agree then? Good, thats what i like to hear.

[ants in my poptarts]

So you agree then? Good, thats what i like to hear.

I agree with what I posted. I'm a little confused as to what your saying tho.

[PooPfish]

Gays may be prone to mental illness, but that is only because they are ostracized and ridiculed in our society.

I almost think it is fucked up to deny anyone who is not a criminal/pedo to adopt a child. I am sure the child would be much more thankful living with a gay couple who cares for them, rather than living in a fucking orphanage.

[Struwwelpeter]

Read the fucking links I posted you fucking god damned faggot, it is not chalked up to social stigma as it occurs even in nations that are far more tolerant than the US when it comes to homosexuality. It blows the mind how people are coming on here and saying "oh well, faggots may be a bunch of fuck ups but I think they should be able to adopt children anyway". Have you no common sense?

[PooPfish]

Read the fucking links I posted you fucking god damned faggot, it is not chalked up to social stigma as it occurs even in nations that are far more tolerant than the US when it comes to homosexuality. It blows the mind how people are coming on here and saying "oh well, faggots may be a bunch of fuck ups but I think they should be able to adopt children anyway". Have you no common sense?

Common sense would be saying that children are sitting in orphanages, and there are gay couples who are screened to see if they are fit to adopt children. Denying a child of a home is fucked.

[ants in my poptarts]

Read the fucking links I posted you fucking god damned faggot, it is not chalked up to social stigma as it occurs even in nations that are far more tolerant than the US when it comes to homosexuality. It blows the mind how people are coming on here and saying "oh well, faggots may be a bunch of fuck ups but I think they should be able to adopt children anyway". Have you no common sense?

I'm saying a person is either mentally ill or not. Your links say Homosexuals are more likely to be mentally ill. OK. So when they go to adopt children, the agency will do background checks like they always do. If the person is unfit, they don't get a kid. Unless you can prove homosexuals are garanteed to be unfit parents you've lost, sorry.

[Struwwelpeter]

Denying a child a home of faggots is not fucked. Who determines if these people are mentally fit to adopt children? Are they briefed on the dangers of homosexuality and the threat homosexuals could pose to children? Or are they duped in to believing it is acceptable by the MSM and anti-scientists? Having a child in an orphanage is better than having a child in a homosexual home. Are you an orphan or something?

[PooPfish]

I'm saying a person is either mentally ill or not. Your links say Homosexuals are more likely to be mentally ill. OK. So when they go to adopt children, the agency will do background checks like they always do. If the person is unfit, they don't get a kid. Unless you can prove homosexuals are garanteed to be unfit parents you've lost, sorry.

This.

[ZeroMalarki]

Then why must you say it is acceptable for them to adopt children; faggot-enabler?

Because a child is still better off with a pair of parents that love it for who it is than growing up in an orphanage.

[ants in my poptarts]

Denying a child a home of faggots is not fucked. Who determines if these people are mentally fit to adopt children?

Well then who are they to judge if a hetero couple is fit?

Are they briefed on the dangers of homosexuality and the threat homosexuals could pose to children?

You haven't proved these exist yet.

Or are the duped in to believing it is acceptable by the MSM and anti-scientists? Having a child in an orphanage is better than having a child in a homosexual home. Are you an orphan or something?

You know what would help? EVIDENCE

[Struwwelpeter]

Put me on your ignore list.

[AnalHerpes]

Interesting thing to think about in regards to gays and depression.

It has been noted that clinical depression causes the hypothalamus to shrink. In a study where they performed an autopsy of people who died (I think of AIDS) theyt found that the hypothalamus of the homosexuals was half the size of the heterosexuals. In another study where they chopped off part of the hypothalamus of monkeys, the monkeys started exhibiting strange sexual behaviors.

Does homosexuality lead to an increase in depression or vice-versa? Maybe.

[ants in my poptarts]

Put me on your ignore list.

Become smarter.

[ArmsMerchant]

Gay marriage and gay adoption are a form of both feminism and misanthropy; they are an allocation of privileges to a group of people who both have no use and no business touting them, they are superficial, useless albeit dangerous rights that ultimately result in devastating consequences for children and society.


This is egregious, hateful and mean-spirited nonsense and the poster should know better.

Extending equal rights to all groups in no way infringes on the rights of any group --this should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

"Feminism" is all about civil rights for all women; "gay rights" (this is so obvious, I can't believe I even have to point this out) is about civil rights for gay men and gay women.

"Devasting consequences"? Like freedom and equality? Good grief.

[ZeroMalarki]

Children cannot develop healthily without a mother and a father; they both provide very important stimulus during the developing years that cannot be replicated by two fathers or two mothers, furthermore faggots do not engage in love but a form of self-hatred and narcissism, they are statistically shown to be less mentally stable, they are not like straight people at all and their relationships can never be anything like that of the standard nuclear family.

Jim, this mentally stable thing tends to be more as a result of the side of society with people like you trying to force upon someone what they can and cannot be. In countries with less of a homophobic streak, sanity tends to go up.

[Struwwelpeter]

This is egregious, hateful and mean-spirited nonsense and the poster should know better.

Extending equal rights to all groups in no way infringes on the rights of any group --this should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

Yes it does, as different genders, races, preferences etc are not equal. For example if a woman is allowed to vote on whether or not I or my brothers go to war; this is clearly wrong as women cannot and thus do not fight in wars. Thus they have no fucking say on who goes to war. This is one example. By enabling homosexuals to adopt children you create more homosexuals (http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html) and thus more people's lives are threatened by the evils of homosexuality. This does not include outright physical and mental abuse, and the shame of living with faggots.

"Feminism" is all about civil rights for all women; "gay rights" (this is so obvious, I can't believe I even have to point this out) is about civil rights for gay men and gay women.

Not true. Feminism is about women over men, specifically white men, and so are faggot's rights. As these groups can never equal white men, in order to get the same effect you must make them more entitled. The same applies to affirmative action or reverse discrimination rather. If the races will never be equal, you must give those at the bottom a free ride. And of course, the same effect, white labor, just like women's equality and fag equality is never achieved. A woman is always a cum bucket and a fag will never have children. That is final.

[Struwwelpeter]

Jim, this mentally stable thing tends to be more as a result of the side of society with people like you trying to force upon someone what they can and cannot be. In countries with less of a homophobic streak, sanity tends to go up.

Did you not read the fucking link, the same instances occur in nations such as New Zealand which are far more tolerant than the US when it comes to homosexuality, it has ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL to do with social stigma alone.

[ants in my poptarts]

Yes it does, as different genders, races, preferences etc are not equal. For example if a woman is allowed to vote on whether or not I or my brothers go to war; this is clearly wrong as women cannot and thus do not fight in wars. By enabling homosexuals to adopt children you create more homosexuals (http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html) and thus more people's lives are threatened by the evils of homosexuality. This does not include outright physical and mental abuse, and the shame of living with faggots.



Not true. Feminism is about women over men, specifically white men, and so are faggot's rights. As these groups can never equal white men, in order to get the same effect you must make them more entitled. The same applies to affirmative action or reverse discrimination rather. If the races will never be equal, you must give those at the bottom a free ride. And of course, the same effect, white labor, just like women's equality and fag equality is never achieved. A woman is always a cum bucket and a fag will never have children. That is final.


It's funny that i ruined your entire arguement and yet you procede to use the same flawed arguement against someone else. Epic fail sir.

:death:

If I'm on your ignore list your proving what a coward you are.

[Struwwelpeter]

Ants in my Poptarts; where exactly have you ruined my entire argument? You mean ignore the scientifically demonstrated evidence I have given you, demand more evidence, and then cry like a little bitch? It's obvious you have lost as you cannot stop coming on here and following people around telling who has beat who in an argument. You can't even use simple fucking contractions and you have to audacity to come on here and tell everyone how their arguments are "epic fail"? Get the fuck off of this website.

[ArmsMerchant]

Common sense would be saying that children are sitting in orphanages, and there are gay couples who are screened to see if they are fit to adopt children. Denying a child of a home is fucked.

Carrey's fear-filled mind is made up, and is quite immune to the effects of common sense, common decency, logic, or compassion.

[ants in my poptarts]

Ants in my Poptarts; where exactly have you ruined my entire argument? You mean ignore the scientifically demonstrated evidence I have given you, demand more evidence, and then cry like a little bitch? It's obvious you have lost as you cannot stop coming on here and following people around telling who has beat who in an argument. You can't even use simple fucking contractions and you have to audacity to come on here and tell everyone how their arguments are "epic fail"? Get the fuck off of this website.

I AGREED WITH YOUR EVIDENCE YOU FUCKING MORON.

Tell me what you dont understand.

Gays are more likely to have mental illnesses.

Adoption agencies will not give a child to someone with a mental ilnness, when the system is working correctly.

Since you have given ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE SHOWING HOMOSEXUALITY GUARANTEES MENTAL ILLNESS you cannot use it as a reason for barring adoption.

[Struwwelpeter]

Neither is it guaranteed that all heterosexuals are mentally sane; yet many of them still adopt children and go on to fuck them up. The system can not work correctly because it is run by humans. Humans are flawed. When you already have the risk of poor heterosexual adoption selection, and throw in homosexuals, which are estimated to be about 40% more mentally fucked up than straight people, you are creating a situation in which the chances of this happening with gays skyrockets. And as I showed above, a significant amount of children become homosexual upon homosexual adoption, and thus their chances of becoming fucked up increases. This is not even taking in to account the nature of having two same-sex parents, which is guaranteed to fuck up the life of a child, as a child requires both a father and a mother to raise the child properly.

[Dog]

2. No, homosexuality is a mental illness and goes against a humans function. Would you let a psychopath paedophile adopt a child?

That is easily the most retarded thing I've heard this month. Please tell me you're trolling. :facepalm:

[ants in my poptarts]

Neither is it guaranteed that all heterosexuals are mentally sane; yet many of them still adopt children and go on to fuck them up. The system can not work correctly because it is run by humans. Humans are flawed.

Cop out. It obviously functions somewhat. And if these homos are so deranged don't you think it would be pretty noticable?

When you already have the risk of poor heterosexual adoption selection, and throw in homosexuals, which are estimated to be about 40% more mentally fucked up than straight people, you are creating a situation in which the chances of this happening with gays skyrockets.

So instead of discriminating against gays make a better system.

And as I showed above, a significant amount of children become homosexual upon homosexual adoption, and thus their chances of becoming fucked up increases.

Maybe humans have more homosexual tendoncies then we know, and being raised in that environment encourages honesty. You really can't measure the amount of closet homosexuals. Unless their parents are brainwashing them why is it a bad thing that they are homosexual? You still can't prove anything wrong with homosexuality.

This is not even taking in to account the nature of having two same-sex parents, which is guaranteed to fuck up the life of a child, as a child requires both a father and a mother to raise the child properly.

Guaranteed? Really? MAYBE YOU SHOULD POST SOME EVIDENCE YOU DUMB FUCK.

[Struwwelpeter]

Cop out. It obviously functions somewhat. And if these homos are so deranged don't you think it would be pretty noticable?

How does it function?

It is pretty noticeable?



So instead of discriminating against gays make a better system.

You cannot make a better system; it will always be run by humans and it will always be prone to errors.


Maybe humans have more homosexual tendoncies then we know, and being raised in that environment encourages honesty. You really can't measure the amount of closet homosexuals. Unless their parents are brainwashing them why is it a bad thing that they are homosexual? You still can't prove anything wrong with homosexuality.

It is bad to be a homosexual because homosexuals are more prone to STD's, mental disorder, crime, etc, I.E. being a homosexual means being a degenerate piece of shit. God what are you a fucking faggot? Seek help you sick fuck.


Guaranteed? Really? MAYBE YOU SHOULD POST SOME EVIDENCE YOU DUMB FUCK.

Illiterate, lazy, or stupid? These are your only options.

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

http://net-burst.net/marital/father.htm

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf


It is obvious why not having a mother and a father, the family system intended by nature, will fuck a child up.

[Cytosine]

Hey kids, don't feed the stupid troll. You can't change his mind because he either doesn't want to listen, or doesn't believe the shit he's spouting.

The reality is that gays are going to be given the same rights and privileges to fuck things up as everyone else in Western society. Some little hate-filled trolls and backward-ass politicians won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. If they hate freedom and equality so much, I hear Iran's nice this time of year.

[ants in my poptarts]

Hey kids, don't feed the stupid troll. You can't change his mind because he either doesn't want to listen, or doesn't believe the shit he's spouting.

The reality is that gays are going to be given the same rights and privileges to fuck things up as everyone else in Western society. Some little hate-filled trolls and backward-ass politicians won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. If they hate freedom and equality so much, I hear Iran's nice this time of year.

I'm not trying to change his mind, it's fun making him look stupid. He really believes this retarded shit.

[Struwwelpeter]

LOL

[elf omg]

Gay people should have the same chance at getting marriage/kids right as anyone else.

Not allowing ANY of them to parent kids because SOME might fuck it up is a terrible idea. How would you feel about it if hetero couples weren't allowed kids, because of the massive amount of straight people mistreating their kids?

[Cytosine]

LOL

See? Look at that quality posting!

Christ, Jim, you're making the HB tards look good with the shit you're pulling. At least you used to be a good troll, albeit stupid.

When can we ban him again? The forums were so peaceful before every second post was JFLC.

[Struwwelpeter]

Why are you posting on this website?

[Cytosine]

Why are you posting on this website?

Because I just can't get enough of you, sweetcheeks.

[ants in my poptarts]

How does it function?
Children get adopted?

It is pretty noticeable?
So the ones with mental illnesses won't get children.

You cannot make a better system; it will always be run by humans and it will always be prone to errors.
Yea, prone to error, obviously, everything is. Doesn't mean they're handing out children to every asshole off the street. Do you know how long it takes to adopt a kid? How much the prospective parents need to do?


It is bad to be a homosexual because homosexuals are more prone to STD's, mental disorder, crime, etc, I.E.
Provide evidence they are more likely to commit crimes and get STD's.
But besides that, THE ONES WITH THE PROBLEMS YOU MENTION WON"T BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT. Thats what you can't seem to get.

being a homosexual means being a degenerate piece of shit. God what are you a fucking faggot? Seek help you sick fuck.

"Wow, Jim called him a faggot! Guess he wins!" :applaud:
No.


Illiterate, lazy, or stupid? These are your only options.

Says you. Jim if your a genius i want to be retarded.

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html
I loved all those studies he mentioned. Wait, there weren't any studies mentioned? It was just his opinion? One down...


http://net-burst.net/marital/father.htm
You do realize just because it came up on google doesn't make it a good source. Homosexuality isn't even mentioned. There's a ton i can say about this, but i'll let the source speak for itself.
These figures await further verification from future research. They need have only a grain of truth in them, however, to be highly disturbing.
Two down...

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

Homosexuality not mentioned. And I really don't think a bunch of fathers wanting their children back are unbaised when talking about fatherless children.
Three down...

http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf

Jim I'm not reading an entire book to prove you are an idiot. Quote something relevent.

It is obvious why not having a mother and a father, the family system intended by nature, will fuck a child up

No it isn't obvious. PROVE IT MOTHERFUCKER. Try using a source that isn't completely retarded. Maybe mention a study, or an experiment.

[Yggdrasil]

Yea, i think gay/straight does have roots at birth. But there is also evidence that there are environmental influences. But nurture/nature is an arguement thats been around for a long time and there is no answer to.

I myself can't provide an answer to this, though I can remember engaging in rather gay activities from very early childhood (pre-school).

This whole debate is fruitless. Gays will, through one way or another, adopt children if they should so choose to. The world's changing, and backwards, spiteful pricks like Jim will either suck it up or... move to Canada? Haha!

[Struwwelpeter]

A medical doctor said something? That's just his opinion. You got these links from google? Two down. Homosexuality is not mentioned, but the fact that fatherless children are fuckups is relevant? Bullshit. I am a homosexual and there is nothing you can do that will convince me that my lifestyle is wrong. Everyone is born with equal rights.

[Snoopy]

If they pass the criteria for adopting a child, then no one's opinion should be worth a turdcake on it. As for marriage; if two people want to get married, no one has the right to bitch about it providing the couple are adults.

[Struwwelpeter]

As for homosexuals and AIDS;

http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/aids.html
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/6089-04.pdf (see black MSM homosexuals, along with the other homosexuals of different races)

And the criminality factor was in the very article I posted; but of course you didn't read it, and so far have no commented on it, per true AIMP fashion.

[Struwwelpeter]

If they pass the criteria for adopting a child, then no one's opinion should be worth a turdcake on it. As for marriage; if two people want to get married, no one has the right to bitch about it providing the couple are adults.
This is the kind of retarded logic I am talking about.

[Snoopy]

but of course you didn't read it, and so far have no commented on it, per true AIMP fashion.

That's because you're a failtroll, holmes. Next time, please don't be so obvious.

[KillSwitch_J]

I am a homosexual and there is nothing you can do that will convince me that my lifestyle is wrong.

Don't worry Jim, we won't hold it against you.:D

[Snoopy]

This is the kind of retarded logic I am talking about.

You eat your own feces.

[ants in my poptarts]

A medical doctor said something? That's just his opinion. You got these links from google? Two down. Homosexuality is not mentioned, but the fact that fatherless children are fuckups is relevant? Bullshit. I am a homosexual and there is nothing you can do that will convince me that my lifestyle is wrong. Everyone is born with equal rights.

A medical doctor is someone with a medical degree. He isn't magic. He didn't say where his info was comming from, so it is a worthless opinion.
Your second site said the information was speculation and needed to be confirmed by further study. So it's worthless.
The third one was obviously biased, it was fathers talking about how important having a father is. How do you not see that?

There is one thing you could do to convince me. Provide EVIDENCE. Evidence that doesn't suck. Just because it's on a website doesn't make it true, believe it or not.

And the criminality factor was in the very article I posted; but of course you didn't read it, and so far have no commented on it, per true AIMP fashion

Guess I missed it. Care to put it in quotes for me?

[Snoopy]

A medical doctor is someone with a medical degree. He isn't magic. He didn't say where his info was comming from, so it is a worthless opinion.
Your second site said the information was speculation and needed to be confirmed by further study. So it's worthless.
The third one was obviously biased, it was fathers talking about how important having a father is. How do you not see that?

There is one thing you could do to convince me. Provide EVIDENCE. Evidence that doesn't suck. Just because it's on a website doesn't make it true, believe it or not.

This is confusing. You're a troll, and so is he... and you're like trolling each other in a fake troll debate about gay rights.

...only on totse.

[ants in my poptarts]

This is confusing. You're a troll, and so is he... and you're like trolling each other in a fake troll debate about gay rights.

...only on totse.

I do troll, but I'm serious here.

But this is an amusing circumstance.

[Yggdrasil]

This is confusing. You're a troll, and so is he... and you're like trolling each other in a fake troll debate about gay rights.

...only on totse.

.. You mean Zoklet?

[Snoopy]

I do troll, but I'm serious here.

The world doesn't work that way. Humans have a thing called "labels". And those are for life.

[Riotupfront]

I'm down for gay marriage, but honestly gay adoption is going to drastically alter the kids life. If no one else will adopt the kid it's better than nothing, but it should only be a last resort.

[Snoopy]

I'm down for gay marriage, but honestly gay adoption is going to drastically alter the kids life. If no one else will adopt the kid it's better than nothing, but it should only be a last resort.

Doesn't matter. With the way people are these days, the kid has over 50% chance to get severly fucked up no matter who adopts it. People just fail at raising kids. Especially people who can't naturally have kids. I know a few of them. They have some serious issues with themselves. Handing them a child is in my opinion, the last thing anyone should do.

[Naffy]

Gender doesnt effect love.

[refugee]

well considering I came from two straight people, and I'm fucked up as all hell, I think gays should be able to do whatever they would like. Straight marriages are no more fit to raise a child than a gay couple. Hell, if anything the child will be more loving and accepting of people as he/she grows up. That or they'll have serious psychological issues due to the harassment they will face from other children.

I wonder what it would have been like to be raised by gays, hmmm....
*ponders*

[Phinehas]

Sodomites should not be allowed to live.

[Phinehas]

Gender doesnt effect love.

If that's true, why are people "born gay"? Shouldn't they be able to just as easily love people of the opposite sex?

You faggots are such hypocrites.

[Pull My Crazy]

I'm implying that people who cant see other gays wont be gay. Having gay parents will make you several times more likely to be GAY. Yes, that right. After they use a surrogate mother, the child will grow up with only gay men. 2 guys kissing, holding hands, sucking cock, maybe in front of the kid. The kid will see this and be like "hey, this must be normal" etc etc. Look at black kids. their parents go to jail for burglary, and most of them end up in gangs, burgling houses and end up in jail. Just like their parents.

Look back at your childhood and think about what you learnt just by watching your parent/s.

Notice something happening here?

Fact!

[Some Old Drunk Guy]

If that's true, why are people "born gay"? Shouldn't they be able to just as easily love people of the opposite sex?

You faggots are such hypocrites.

that isn't what he meant at all :facepalm:

[AnalHerpes]

that isn't what he meant at all :facepalm:

Even if that isn't what the other guy meant, it is still a valid point. Children have a different relationship with their mother than their father. That is not to say that the children will automatically turn out fucked up but to say it won't have an affect on the child isn't quite true.

I think another big issue is that the kid in all likelyhood will get the shit bullied out of him and develop a complex. Think when you were 10-15, would you and most of your peers treat a kid who had two dads with respect?

[ants in my poptarts]

If that's true, why are people "born gay"? Shouldn't they be able to just as easily love people of the opposite sex?

You faggots are such hypocrites.

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

[Snoopy]

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

Do you know what F5 is?

[ants in my poptarts]

Do you know what F5 is?

Yes but it doesn't seem to do anything.

[Snoopy]

Yes but it doesn't seem to do anything.

That's because you're on linux you commie fag!

[ants in my poptarts]

That's because you're on linux you commie fag!

I am? :confused:

[refugee]

Even if that isn't what the other guy meant, it is still a valid point. Children have a different relationship with their mother than their father. That is not to say that the children will automatically turn out fucked up but to say it won't have an affect on the child isn't quite true.

I think another big issue is that the kid in all likelyhood will get the shit bullied out of him and develop a complex. Think when you were 10-15, would you and most of your peers treat a kid who had two dads with respect?

like many of us didnt grow up without either a mother or father? your argument is swiss.

[Slapshot]

Faggots are fucking repulsive.

It's a filthy, vile, and disgusting habit. Everything that I was born with says that it's wrong. I get nauseous when i see 2 men kissing in public and I can't just "accept" it just because some douchbag says that I should.

Can a single one of you douchbags tell me exactly WHY the FUCK I should force myself to "accept" something that I find repulsive?

[AnalHerpes]

like many of us didnt grow up without either a mother or father? your argument is swiss.

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

That is not to say that the children will automatically turn out fucked up but to say it won't have an affect on the child isn't quite true.

Yes people from single parents can turn out fine and people with both parents can turn out fucked up but the mother and the father's roles as parents are not superimposed over each other. If one is absent, the other will not completely take over the role of the other.

[Clarphimous]

This. I hate that nigger down the road cause he sits on his ass all day and gets welfare. If i steal his T.V(omg? probably mine anyway), it's a hate crime. If he steals mine, it's "omg these poor niggers cant afford a tv, cant earn enough, etc, etv"

You beat up a fag for being a fag it's a hate crime. He beats you up,(LOL!!), nothing happens(cause you got bashed by a fag, and you aint gonna tell.)

If a man and woman want to have a child, find. Natural. If 2 guys want to have a kid, then get fucked. You cant turn his asshole into a uterus. And im sure as fuck he doesnt want a kid popping out his cock.

Why cant people either remain single, or be with a person of the OPPOSITE sex. Fucking faggots. Faggots should /wrists and die, cry babies.

It used to be the other way around. Whites could do whatever they wanted to blacks and there wasn't much that could be done about it. Hate crime laws overcompensate, partly because of the fact that the officers and courts were biased against the minorities. Now that the racism has died down some, it's unequal again.

It's kind of sad to hear you talking this way about certain groups of people like this.

Did you choose to find certain women attractive? Or did it just sort of happen? Remember back when girls were icky? What if something went awry with your hormones and you found guys attractive instead when you hit puberty?

Apparently *some* people choose whether they want to go out with men or women, but I have a feeling that a lot of these people are borderline cases -- bisexuality.

[ants in my poptarts]

Can a single one of you douchbags tell me exactly WHY the FUCK I should force myself to "accept" something that I find repulsive?

Because there's nothing you can do about it?

[Struwwelpeter]

Actually there is nothing you can do about it, see Defense of Marriage act.

[KillSwitch_J]

Can a single one of you douchbags tell me exactly WHY the FUCK I should force myself to "accept" something that I find repulsive?

For the same reason we have to accept bigots?

[ants in my poptarts]

Actually there is nothing you can do about it, see Defense of Marriage act.

Nothing I can do about what?

[Irukanji]

I agree with what I posted. I'm a little confused as to what your saying tho.

Im saying gays are more prone to having mental disease's, and as such must have roots at birth. If they were so "happy" about being gay, then they wouldnt be so like "omg why do people hate me? why dont i just /wrists?"

Straight people get teased aswell. But, they seem to be able to cope perfectly well, wouldnt you agree?(or they go on a shooting spree and go down as an hero's lol)

[Struwwelpeter]

You cannot tell us that there is nothing we can do about gay marriage; any gay marriage is a mock-marriage as gay marriage is not recognized per federal law, and thus gays do not enjoy any of the benefits of marriage that straight people do, and thus it is nothing more than an attempt to mascarade and marriage, even if all 50 states adopt it.

[Irukanji]

Because a child is still better off with a pair of parents that love it for who it is than growing up in an orphanage.

More gays(men in particular) rape little kiddies who are defenceless. Ever read the stories of prison?(or heard it "straight from the horses mouse" so to say)

They get desperate, and, hey, theres a kiddie who isnt mine but i wanna have a root anyway. Then bam. Then the system is like "Oh, looks like we fucked up", and they dont stop until it's too late. Let them stay in the orphanages until they grow up and get a job. Better then being the "kid" of two faggots. Then what are the kids gonna say about him? "oh, he's that kid with the two faggot parents". Then he goes and kills himself because of it. He just cant hack the constant VERBAL abuse so he kills himself. lol.

[Clarphimous]

Actually there is nothing you can do about it, see Defense of Marriage act.

The Defense of Marriage Act states that just because one state considers a same-sex couple married, another state does not need to accept that marriage as valid.

There are states that allow same-sex marriages. They are Massachusetts and Connecticut. Same-sex marriages will begin to be accepted in Iowa in late April, 2009, and in Vermont on September 1, 2009. California is uncertain. Also, Rhode Island opted to accept same-sex marriages done in other states despite the Defense of Marriage Act.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

[ants in my poptarts]

You cannot tell us that there is nothing we can do about gay marriage; any gay marriage is a mock-marriage as gay marriage is not recognized per federal law, and thus gays do not enjoy any of the benefits of marriage that straight people do, and thus it is nothing more than an attempt to mascarade and marriage, even if all 50 states adopt it.

I never said there was nothing you can do about gay marrige.

[Irukanji]

Interesting thing to think about in regards to gays and depression.

It has been noted that clinical depression causes the hypothalamus to shrink. In a study where they performed an autopsy of people who died (I think of AIDS) theyt found that the hypothalamus of the homosexuals was half the size of the heterosexuals. In another study where they chopped off part of the hypothalamus of monkeys, the monkeys started exhibiting strange sexual behaviors.

Does homosexuality lead to an increase in depression or vice-versa? Maybe.

Links? Find this, sounds like it would help our little debate.

Found some things;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/depression-rates-higher-for-gays/2006/03/30/1143441279515.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+depression+connection:+if+you%27re+gay,+you%27 re+more+prone+to...-a0159593309

[Struwwelpeter]

I'm well aware of that; the benefits of marriage are related to federal taxes and healthcare, since gay marriage regardless of residence is not recognized at a federal level, gays do not enjoy the benefits of marriage as straights do. It really makes me angry that so many people on this website seemingly dropped out of school in the third grade, it's as if I am from another planet.

[ants in my poptarts]

I'm well aware of that; the benefits of marriage are related to federal taxes and healthcare, since gay marriage regardless of residence is not recognized at a federal level, gays do not enjoy the benefits of marriage as straights do. It really makes me angry that so many people on this website seemingly dropped out of school in the third grade, it's as if I am from another planet.

Disagreeing with your dumbass opinion doesn't mean we dropped out of third grade Jim. Would you like me to post quotes where you blatently contradict yourself?

[Struwwelpeter]

When did I say he was a dumbass for disagreeing? He simply has the reading comprehension of a third grade dropout.

Feel free to post everything you like.

[Clarphimous]

I'm well aware of that; the benefits of marriage are related to federal taxes and healthcare, since gay marriage regardless of residence is not recognized at a federal level, gays do not enjoy the benefits of marriage as straights do. It really makes me angry that so many people on this website seemingly dropped out of school in the third grade, it's as if I am from another planet.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

And there are more benefits, but the pdf it links to seems to be broken.

So while a lot of the benefits are federal, there are still many that are state-level.

[Irukanji]

^Ok.

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/rammstein/hitler.html

Download this song. Or ded.

Now, back to ranting.

Go a quick google search for "gay's and violence' or "Gays and drug abuse" or "Gays and why they suck cock"(dont search this, just wanted to see what response to it)

Now, tell me why they are getting abused or abusing people. Do you think that MAYBE these gays havent got the message that;

a. we dont like them
b. we dont want you living in our country anymore
c. we dont want you owning someone elses kid.

And i said owning since gays cant adopt a child and call it their own, so technically it's owning.

[Struwwelpeter]

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


Once again, you dumbass motherfucking retard, GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT RECOGNIZED AT A FEDERAL LEVEL. THUS, NO GAY PEOPLE FROM THE STATES THAT ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE ARE GOING TO ENJOY ANY OF THESE BENEFITS, AND EVEN SINGLE FAGGOTS CANNOT ENJOY SOME OF THESE AS THEY CANNOT OPENLY SERVE IN THE MILITARY, NOW GO GET EUTHANIZED, BUT BEFORE THAT READ THIS:


Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

And there are more benefits, but the pdf it links to seems to be broken.

These are all applicable to single/divorced people irregardless of sexuality, and benefits vary from state to state.

[whimsi]

Im not implying they were going to adopt. Im implying that they, as the link states, are 13 times MORE likely to do it[suicide]. Which means they have something wrong with their brains from the start. Most people are normal, i.e. their perfectly straight and never think of killing themselves. The gays seem to be the opposite. Am i right?

Predisposition to a mental illness, even though your implying they were born perfectly normal? Doesnt seem that way. Seems like they were already going to be gay from the start.

I think that your point has some holes...

For starters, perhaps its the constant persecution and harassment that causes gays to be more likely to commit suicide. I have had several gay friends, and while it would be really nice to be able to pretend like we're all a bunch of preschoolers who still feel like everyone's a person and can treat everyone well regardless of race, gender and sexuality... the sad fact is that they are definitely discriminated against. I have seen, first hand, more outwardly hateful daily occurrences toward gays that I have observed than I have witnessed toward minorities.

I am not saying this to be an end-all counter to your point, but your point isn't based only on fact, you are also drawing conclusions based on assumptions which are not backed.

You have to look at it the way it is... What you're saying is about the same as stating as fact "kids who are sexually abused are 13 times more likely to commit suicide because they are mentally ill from the start" which simply isn't a definite truth. There are many more elements that cause this mental illness or condition (depression or perhaps even just legitimate, rational sadness and despair) which you are not considering.

[ants in my poptarts]

When did I say he was a dumbass for disagreeing? He simply has the reading comprehension of a third grade dropout.

Feel free to post everything you like.

Sorry I just kind of assumed seeing as how you thank anyone who agrees with you regardless of the quality of their post and anyone who disagree's with you is a faggot/retard.

Nevermind about the contradiction, it wasn't as bad as I thought.

[Struwwelpeter]

For starters, perhaps its the constant persecution and harassment that causes gays to be more likely to commit suicide. I have had several gay friends, and while it would be really nice to be able to pretend like we're all a bunch of preschoolers who still feel like everyone's a person and can treat everyone well regardless of race, gender and sexuality... the sad fact is that they are definitely discriminated against. I have seen, first hand, more outwardly hateful daily occurrences toward gays that I have observed than I have witnessed toward minorities.

This is not true, if you read the study I posted, it occurs just as often in nations that are tolerant of homosexuality, to a far greater degree than the USA. AIMP if you have such a problem with people making "baseless claims", why aren't you jumping on this homo? Oh yeah you're a fucking fag, that's why.

[Irukanji]

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:



Theres the problem. They arent legally married, and hopefully they never will be. Otherwise they will see it as a means to be like "oh, lets just show affection in public, etc etc".

I dont want to see a fucking dude and another dude kissing/holding hands/anything in public. Keep you fucking hands to yourself. What you do in your spare time in the privacy of your own home is fine. But keep it there.

[Irukanji]

why aren't you jumping on this homo? Oh yeah you're a fucking fag, that's why.

Contradicting yourself, eh?

He IS jumping on the homo. Look closely and you'll see :)

[Clarphimous]

Once again, you dumbass motherfucking retard, GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT RECOGNIZED AT A FEDERAL LEVEL. THUS, NO GAY PEOPLE FROM THE STATES THAT ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE ARE GOING TO ENJOY ANY OF THESE BENEFITS, AND EVEN SINGLE FAGGOTS CANNOT ENJOY SOME OF THESE AS THEY CANNOT OPENLY SERVE IN THE MILITARY, NOW GO GET EUTHANIZED, BUT BEFORE THAT READ THIS:

Looks like somebody else is failing at reading comprehension.

These are all applicable to single/divorced people irregardless of sexuality, and benefits vary from state to state.

They wouldn't be applicable to gay couples if they couldn't marry. Thus, in response to this:

You cannot tell us that there is nothing we can do about gay marriage; any gay marriage is a mock-marriage as gay marriage is not recognized per federal law, and thus gays do not enjoy any of the benefits of marriage that straight people do, and thus it is nothing more than an attempt to mascarade and marriage, even if all 50 states adopt it.

Marrying does have its benefits for gay couples if it is recognized by state law.

[ants in my poptarts]

This is not true, if you read the study I posted, it occurs just as often in nations that are tolerant of homosexuality, to a far greater degree than the USA. AIMP if you have such a problem with people making "baseless claims", why aren't you jumping on this homo? Oh yeah you're a fucking fag, that's why.

Or maybe it's because he didn't make a claim.

For starters, perhaps its the constant persecution and harassment that causes gays to be more likely to commit suicide. I have had several gay friends, and while it would be really nice to be able to pretend like we're all a bunch of preschoolers who still feel like everyone's a person and can treat everyone well regardless of race, gender and sexuality... the sad fact is that they are definitely discriminated against. I have seen, first hand, more outwardly hateful daily occurrences toward gays that I have observed than I have witnessed toward minorities.


He gave his opinion then gave personal experiance as evidence.



Children cannot develop healthily without a mother and a father; they both provide very important stimulus during the developing years that cannot be replicated by two fathers or two mothers, furthermore faggots do not engage in love but a form of self-hatred and narcissism, they are statistically shown to be less mentally stable, they are not like straight people at all and their relationships can never be anything like that of the standard nuclear family.


This on the other hand is your dumbass opinion presented as fact, with absolutely no supporting evidence.

[Struwwelpeter]

A claim is an opinion; the joys of double standardry.

* an assertion of a right (as to money or property); "his claim asked for damages"
* assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar"
* an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
* demand as being one's due or property; assert one's right or title to; "He claimed his suitcases at the airline counter"; "Mr. Smith claims special tax exemptions because he is a foreign resident"
* demand for something as rightful or due; "they struck in support of their claim for a shorter work day"
* ask for legally or make a legal claim to, as of debts, for example; "They claimed on the maximum allowable amount"
* an informal right to something; "his claim on her attentions"; "his title to fame"
* lay claim to; as of an idea; "She took credit for the whole idea"
* title: an established or recognized right; "a strong legal claim to the property"; "he had no documents confirming his title to his father's estate"; "he staked his claim"
* take as an undesirable consequence of some event or state of affairs; "the accident claimed three lives"; "The hard work took its toll on her"
* call: a demand especially in the phrase "the call of duty"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Amusing, this faggot.

[ants in my poptarts]

A claim is an opinion; the joys of double standardry.

* an assertion of a right (as to money or property); "his claim asked for damages"
* assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar"
* an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
* demand as being one's due or property; assert one's right or title to; "He claimed his suitcases at the airline counter"; "Mr. Smith claims special tax exemptions because he is a foreign resident"
* demand for something as rightful or due; "they struck in support of their claim for a shorter work day"
* ask for legally or make a legal claim to, as of debts, for example; "They claimed on the maximum allowable amount"
* an informal right to something; "his claim on her attentions"; "his title to fame"
* lay claim to; as of an idea; "She took credit for the whole idea"
* title: an established or recognized right; "a strong legal claim to the property"; "he had no documents confirming his title to his father's estate"; "he staked his claim"
* take as an undesirable consequence of some event or state of affairs; "the accident claimed three lives"; "The hard work took its toll on her"
* call: a demand especially in the phrase "the call of duty"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Amusing, this faggot.

Do you think the more shit you throw in a post the smarter you look? This is beside the point. He stated that it was an opinion by putting "perhaps" in front of it, and then gave evidence as to why he felt this way. You present your idiot opinion as fact. He gave evidence. You didn't. Your's was baseless. His wasn't. Stop trying to spin this.

[KillSwitch_J]

I dont want to see a fucking dude and another dude kissing/holding hands/anything in public. Keep you fucking hands to yourself. What you do in your spare time in the privacy of your own home is fine. But keep it there.

I've run into many elderly people that basically said the same thing about straight people doing the same thing in public. So if gays have to keep their effect locked up till they get home because it offends someone, then I guess straight people will have to do the same because it offends someone.

[Struwwelpeter]

By saying "perhaps" he is asserting that it is in all probability true. I am not going to further argue semantics with you. The fact is he made a claim that is contradicted by scientific evidence, and you are defending it because you yourself are a homosexual. I have backed up all of what I have said here and never once used personal experience as an argument, and if I did you would be all over me like a pogo stick, as Wolfy so ardently put it.

[Clarphimous]

I've run into many elderly people that basically said the same thing about straight people doing the same thing in public. So if gays have to keep their effect locked up till they get home because it offends someone, then I guess straight people will have to do the same because it offends someone.

My great-grandfather didn't think it was right that black and white people should marry. "It just ain't natural". Same thing is going on with gay marriage, now. This time it will be harder though because of the statements in the Bible about it.

[Struwwelpeter]

Your great grandfather was right, it's a shame his children or their children didn't raise your parents or yourself correctly.

[Irukanji]

I've run into many elderly people that basically said the same thing about straight people doing the same thing in public. So if gays have to keep their effect locked up till they get home because it offends someone, then I guess straight people will have to do the same because it offends someone.

I dont have a problem with a guy and a girl kissing/w.e since it is NATURAL for them to do that. A guy and a guy kissing/w.e isnt natural and is just plain wrong.

I.E. It is DISGUSTING. Like 2girls1cup but on a moral level, not a OMFG Wtf??? level.

And old people dont pay taxes so their opinions dont count.

[ants in my poptarts]

By saying "perhaps" he is asserting that it is in all probability true.
No, he is saying it may be true.

I am not going to further argue semantics with you.
Because you will lose.

The fact is he made a claim that is contradicted by scientific evidence,
He has an opinion that is disagreed with by one source. What you don't seem to understand is having a source doesn't make you right. Things like this can be misinterpreted. All he is saying is that his experiance is contradictory to the claim of the article.

and you are defending it because you yourself are a homosexual.
You are insulting me to try and save face.

Homosexual

–noun. Anyone who disagrees with Jim.

I have backed up all of what I have said here and never once used personal experience as an argument, and if I did you would be all over me like a pogo stick, as Wolfy so ardently put it.
No I wouldn't. I take personal experiance for what it is. Obviously it's not real evidence, it is just his reasoning behind his opinion, which was never presented as a fact.

[Irukanji]

Personal experience is better experience then reading about it on the internet, no?

As such, this invalidates this entire thread, since we are obviously not gonna get anywhere. Now, if you dont post some reputable links for WHY gays deserve these rights, then i suggest you gtfo. We gave enough evidence against.

[Struwwelpeter]

I think it's rather humorous that he is insisting that I am the one in danger of losing upon arguing semantics with him. This child cannot even comprehend basic contractions, basic level English words, and how to use punctuation. I have posted a source that shows, in multiple nations tolerant of homosexuality, that homosexuals are still mentally ill the lot of them, irrespective of their native land. As for trying to save face; that's cute, you cannot even make one post directed to me that does not involve declaring yourself the winner, it is clear where your efforts lie in this drivel.

[KillSwitch_J]

My great-grandfather didn't think it was right that black and white people should marry. "It just ain't natural". Same thing is going on with gay marriage, now.

What they mean by natural is according to own their perspective/prejudices.



This time it will be harder though because of the statements in the Bible about it.

I often wonder why people try to follow a book that is so full of inconsistencies, that it is near impossible to follow all of it's commands.

Not to mention it wasn't even a book at one time. It was just a collection of stories from all over the known world (as in at that time), that later got thrown together in order to keep the earlier christian cults from fighting amongst themselves over who was right and who was wrong.

[ants in my poptarts]

Personal experience is better experience then reading about it on the internet, no?

As such, this invalidates this entire thread, since we are obviously not gonna get anywhere. Now, if you dont post some reputable links for WHY gays deserve these rights, then i suggest you gtfo. We gave enough evidence against.

No you didn't give ANY good evidence against. I don't need to provide evidence of something not existing. Thats illogical.

[Struwwelpeter]

You do if you are going to claim it does not exist.

[KillSwitch_J]

I dont have a problem with a guy and a girl kissing/w.e since it is NATURAL for them to do that. A guy and a guy kissing/w.e isnt natural and is just plain wrong.

I wasn't aware that the almighty had put you in charge of determining what is and isn't natural.


And old people dont pay taxes so their opinions dont count.

Oh really. Are your grandparents still alive by any chance? If they are, then do me a favor.

Next time you are at a big family get together. I want you to walk over to them and tell them out loud in front of everyone that their opinion means shit to you because they don't pay taxes. Let me know how that turns out. Ok?

[ants in my poptarts]

I think it's rather humorous that he is insisting that I am the one in danger of losing upon arguing semantics with him. This child cannot even comprehend basic contractions, basic level English words, and how to use punctuation.

I guess the fact that occasionally i put your instead of you're completely invalidates the fact that I'm beating you rather badly.

I have posted a source that shows, in multiple nations tolerant of homosexuality, that homosexuals are still mentally ill the lot of them, irrespective of their native land.

Yeah, one that i never disagreed with. I have never disagreed with the fact that homosexuals show a higher rate of mental illness. Nor have i offered an explaination for this. You asked me why i didn't demand evidence from this post.

For starters, perhaps its the constant persecution and harassment that causes gays to be more likely to commit suicide. I have had several gay friends, and while it would be really nice to be able to pretend like we're all a bunch of preschoolers who still feel like everyone's a person and can treat everyone well regardless of race, gender and sexuality... the sad fact is that they are definitely discriminated against. I have seen, first hand, more outwardly hateful daily occurrences toward gays that I have observed than I have witnessed toward minorities.

Because he presents it as an opinion personal experiance is enough. He isn't arguing, he is giving support for why he holds this opinion.

As for trying to save face; that's cute, you cannot even make one post directed to me that does not involve declaring yourself the winner, it is clear where your efforts lie in this drivel

And seeing how you love nitpicking, I would say there is one post directed at you where i don't declare myself the winner.

You do if you are going to claim it does not exist.

How is it possible to prove something does not exist?

[Struwwelpeter]

And seeing how you love nitpicking,

LOL

[Struwwelpeter]

How is it possible to prove something does not exist?

It is impossible; thus you cannot make these claims.

[ants in my poptarts]

LOL

Oh my God he's laughing at me!!! I must have lost! Try responding to the post dipshit.

[ants in my poptarts]

It is impossible; thus you cannot make these claims.

The only evidence i need for something not existing is the lack of evidence for it. You have not provided a good reason for homosexuals to be barred from adoption. Sorry, I know you don't like it when i say this, but if you cannot provide evidence that a homosexual is an unfit parent solely on the grounds that they are a homosexual you lose.

[Irukanji]

No evidence for gays not existing yet.

Prove to me that gays are essential for the successful continuation of a species. There you go. They arent required for the successful continuation of their species, therefore, they ARE NOT FUCKING NATURAL. How hard is this to comprehend?

Natural = the way nature intended
Unnatural = not natural, man made, artificial, fake(Just like 2 gays marrying, fake.)

[ants in my poptarts]

No evidence for gays not existing yet.

Prove to me that gays are essential for the successful continuation of a species. There you go. They arent required for the successful continuation of their species, therefore, they ARE NOT FUCKING NATURAL. How hard is this to comprehend?

Natural = the way nature intended
Unnatural = not natural, man made, artificial, fake(Just like 2 gays marrying, fake.)

I don't care whether it's natural or not. I do care if they are fit to raise children. You have not given evidence that they are not. This natural/unnatural arguement is stupid. It isn't natural to have artificial heart valves either.

[Irukanji]

I don't care whether it's natural or not. I do care if they are fit to raise children. You have not given evidence that they are not. This natural/unnatural arguement is stupid. It isn't natural to have artificial heart valves either.

Yet, those artificial heart valve are there for the continuation of the species. 2 guys adopting a kid that has a 95% chance of becoming gay isnt for the continuation of the species.

[ants in my poptarts]

Yet, those artificial heart valve are there for the continuation of the species. 2 guys adopting a kid that has a 95% chance of becoming gay isnt for the continuation of the species.

Seeing as how you probably can't support that number, they are helping for the continuation of the species. Even if the kid became gay, they would still be taking the burden of raising him off the taxpayers.

And seeing as how most of the people recieving artificial heart valves are older and won't be having children, it doesn't help the continuation of the species.

[AnalHerpes]

Links? Find this, sounds like it would help our little debate.

Found some things;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/depression-rates-higher-for-gays/2006/03/30/1143441279515.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+depression+connection:+if+you%27re+gay,+you%27 re+more+prone+to...-a0159593309

I didn't find an exact link for the study I was talking about since I learned it mostly from a psychology class. A Google search turned up a few results but most of them were only previews that you have to pay to see the entire article, but here's one.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11315232.html

[AnalHerpes]

I think that your point has some holes...

For starters, perhaps its the constant persecution and harassment that causes gays to be more likely to commit suicide. I have had several gay friends, and while it would be really nice to be able to pretend like we're all a bunch of preschoolers who still feel like everyone's a person and can treat everyone well regardless of race, gender and sexuality... the sad fact is that they are definitely discriminated against. I have seen, first hand, more outwardly hateful daily occurrences toward gays that I have observed than I have witnessed toward minorities.

I am not saying this to be an end-all counter to your point, but your point isn't based only on fact, you are also drawing conclusions based on assumptions which are not backed.

You have to look at it the way it is... What you're saying is about the same as stating as fact "kids who are sexually abused are 13 times more likely to commit suicide because they are mentally ill from the start" which simply isn't a definite truth. There are many more elements that cause this mental illness or condition (depression or perhaps even just legitimate, rational sadness and despair) which you are not considering.

Different people tend to have different reactions to persecution and ridicule. Black people have long been on the receiving end of it yet the suicide rate for blacks is fairly low.

[Clarphimous]

No evidence for gays not existing yet.

Prove to me that gays are essential for the successful continuation of a species. There you go. They arent required for the successful continuation of their species, therefore, they ARE NOT FUCKING NATURAL. How hard is this to comprehend?

Natural = the way nature intended
Unnatural = not natural, man made, artificial, fake(Just like 2 gays marrying, fake.)

Natural does not mean that something is essential for reproduction of mankind. There are things going against our reproduction, yet they are natural.

Also, what is natural is not necessarily good, and what is unnatural is not necessarily bad. For example, diseases are natural, and a lot of our medicine is unnatural.

But actually, homosexuality does occur quite often, and spontaneously, in the animal kingdom. Thus, it is "natural" in that sense. It is because the Bible says that it is "unnatural" that people have this idea that it isn't natural. Are you a Christian? If not, you should be aware of some of the assumptions that Christianity dumps into our culture.

Although, sometimes it seems more like people are using religion as an excuse, rather than the religion itself manipulating people.

[Struwwelpeter]

Homosexuality does not occur in the animal kingdom, only bisexuality. In non-human animals it is bisexual action, not bisexual or homosexual preference, homosexual and bisexual preference only occur in human beings, the only animals capable of being attracted to and preferring one another as individuals. Nice try to rely on the actions of animals to justify your sickness though.

[KillSwitch_J]

Natural = the way nature intended.


I'm sorry Mr wolfy_9005, but I've had to give you an F on this test. You apparently didn't do your homework like the rest of the class did.

Shall we tell Mr. wolfy where he went wrong class? , "IF IT'S FOUND IN NATURE, THEN IT"S NATURAL,
IF IT ISN"T FOUND IN NATURAL, THEN IT"S UNNATURAL!"

Good class. Mr. wolfy. I expect better things from you in the future. I've posted some light reading for you below.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Geckos: It's Not Always About Sex
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050608053415.htm

Gay animals out of the closet?
First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Homosexual behavior in animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[Struwwelpeter]

Bisexual behavior =/= homosexual/bisexual.

Animals do not have sexual preferences, they engage in bisexual behavior simply because they do not understand what they are doing.

[BiggLJ]

I'm not gonna read through pages of bullshit so forgive me if this has been mentioned before. I've already proven why gay marriage is wrong so I'm not gonna get into that. Gay adoption is an even bigger problem. If you support it you're either a freak or a fucking moron. Two guys were not meant to raise children together. Two girls were not meant to raise children together. If they were meant to have children, they'd be able to have children on their own.

Faggots are continually trying to gain more political power. They use their weakness to try and bring the rest of society to their side, and letting them raise our young only furthers their agenda. Letting children be raised by queers is irresponsible and wrong. They are more likely to develop mental illnesses and they will most likely be mocked growing up by the children with real parents. I don't know what states allow gay adoption but I'm ashamed of any that do.

[KillSwitch_J]

Bisexual behavior =/= homosexual/bisexual.

Animals do not have sexual preferences, they engage in bisexual behavior simply because they do not understand what they are doing.



So you keep saying yet, you haven't shown any proof of you theory.

[BiggLJ]

So you keep saying yet, you haven't shown any proof of you theory.

You can't prove the existence of any homosexual animals. It's not on him to prove that something doesn't exist.

[Struwwelpeter]

Thank you BiggLJ.



So you keep saying yet, you haven't shown any proof of you theory.

Neither have you; no homosexual preferences in animals exist; only homosexual/bisexual behavior in organisms that have no clue what they are doing. Once again, very humorous that these people look to animals to justify what they do.

[Dog]

Thank you BiggLJ.





Neither have you; no homosexual preferences in animals exist; only homosexual/bisexual behavior in organisms that have no clue what they are doing. Once again, very humorous that these people look to animals to justify what they do.

So, when you engage in homosexual behavior, you're admitting that you can control it?

[Struwwelpeter]

PizzaNazi: what exactly were you trying to do with that post? It's clear you're to troll, but what you have posted here is not even relevant to what I have said. If you're going to make some dumbass remark, do try and make some sort of sense of what you're typing, I.E. to the furthest extent a negro can.

[Dog]

PizzaNazi: what exactly were you trying to do with that post? It's clear you're to troll, but what you have posted here is not even relevant to what I have said. If you're going to make some dumbass remark, do try and make some sort of sense of what you're typing, I.E. to the furthest extent a negro can.

I asked you a simple question. Your claim is that human homosexuals "know what they're doing", and by extension, have control over it. So I'm asking you, given that you're a homosexual, whether you personally feel you have control over your desire for other men.

[Irukanji]

I'm sorry Mr wolfy_9005, but I've had to give you an F on this test. You apparently didn't do your homework like the rest of the class did.

Shall we tell Mr. wolfy where he went wrong class? , "IF IT'S FOUND IN NATURE, THEN IT"S NATURAL,
IF IT ISN"T FOUND IN NATURAL, THEN IT"S UNNATURAL!"

Good class. Mr. wolfy. I expect better things from you in the future. I've posted some light reading for you below.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Geckos: It's Not Always About Sex
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050608053415.htm

Gay animals out of the closet?
First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Homosexual behavior in animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Omg? Did they also observe these animals having sex with the FEMALE of their species? Yes? Thats what i thought. Bisexual =/= homosexual, since being bisexual means they are reproducing, which means their species can continue. Being all-out homo like these gays are being, isnt allowing them to reproduce, to continue with the species.

Bet you werent waiting for that, where you?. Now, find me the entire mating list of the animals they studied. And their endangered status.

Good to see you cant even read what i said.
"IF IT'S FOUND IN NATURE, THEN IT"S NATURAL,
IF IT ISN"T FOUND IN NATURE, THEN IT"S UNNATURAL!"

Is this what you wanted to type? Or is your male friend on your lap, and your trying to type but he keeps bouncing up and down like a gorgonite?

[KillSwitch_J]

You can't prove the existence of any homosexual animals. It's not on him to prove that something doesn't exist.

I don't have to prove anything as I'm not the one that said it was unnatural. Yet I did find links to studies showing that it does appear to exist in the animal kingdom. Jim also put forth his theory that it doesn't exist, so the burdens now on him to prove it.

[Struwwelpeter]

Fact: Homo-sapiens are the only animals with sexual preferences.

Fact: All other animals have no sexual preference.

Fact: Animals that engage in bisexual behavior do not know what they are doing, they do not have brains developed enough to understand.

This is what I have implied in this thread. Now, I would appreciate it if you stopped following me around on this website calling me and even making threads about me explaining to the populace that I am a troll. You can stick around and call me gay, a nigger, etc, as that's good for me and bad for you, but you have forfeited your right to call me, and anyone else for that matter, a troll, and still be taken seriously on this website by anyone but trolls.

[ants in my poptarts]

Wne are people going to realize the "Animal do/do not exibit homosexuality" is totally irrelivant? In case you didn't notice humans are somewhat unique in nature.

[Struwwelpeter]

I don't have to prove anything as I'm not the one that said it was unnatural. Yet I did find links to studies showing that it does appear to exist in the animal kingdom. Jim also put forth his theory that it doesn't exist, so the burdens now on him to prove it.

You do have to prove homosexual preference exists in the animal kingdom, you made the claim and the burden lies on you, faggot.


I'm sorry Mr wolfy_9005, but I've had to give you an F on this test. You apparently didn't do your homework like the rest of the class did.

Shall we tell Mr. wolfy where he went wrong class? , "IF IT'S FOUND IN NATURE, THEN IT"S NATURAL,
IF IT ISN"T FOUND IN NATURAL, THEN IT"S UNNATURAL!"

Good class. Mr. wolfy. I expect better things from you in the future. I've posted some light reading for you below.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html

Geckos: It's Not Always About Sex
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608053415.htm

Gay animals out of the closet?
First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Homosexual behavior in animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

None of these sources indicate that homosexual preference exists in animals. You have yet to provide any evidence that they exist. The burden of proof lies only on the claimant when the claimant is not on your side.

[Irukanji]

Seeing as how you probably can't support that number, they are helping for the continuation of the species. Even if the kid became gay, they would still be taking the burden of raising him off the taxpayers.

And seeing as how most of the people recieving artificial heart valves are older and won't be having children, it doesn't help the continuation of the species.

Older people have knowledge which can be shared to better serve our species continuation. Tricks they learnt to make life easier, more enjoyable, etc. If they didnt survive past 30, then they wouldnt know enough about the world to help us out. But since they do, they are contributing. Look at all the major inventors. Most of them are over the age of 25 atleast, most going into their 40's and 50's.

And fuck the taxpayers. The money either get's wasted on some kid for 18 years, or goes to paying for some dumb politician, etc who supports a bill for the gays.

[Irukanji]

I didn't find an exact link for the study I was talking about since I learned it mostly from a psychology class. A Google search turned up a few results but most of them were only previews that you have to pay to see the entire article, but here's one.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11315232.html

Thank you sir.

More shit to add to the debate;

Humans are the only species to openly wage war without cost and without concern for others.
Humans are the only species to develop weapons to make the slaying of their enemies easier/more efficient
Humans are the only species stupid enough to believe in a "god" or "omnipresent being"
Humans are the only species who will go to great lengths to annoy the shit out of someone just for shits and giggles.
Humans are the only species who will choose to only have sex with the same sex, and ignore all other sexes, just because they think it is "right"
Humans are the only species who destroy their environment, because we can

Basically, humans make alot of choices. Most of them are stupid. Some make sense, but some are like WTF?

How hard is it to comprehend that by there being LBGT's in the world, that they are detrimental to the overall species. Most of these people think it's perfectly normal. Most of these people also come for poor ass countries, and have no knowledge of why it is wrong. But maybe this is just Darwinism. The gays cannot reproduce, so when they FINALLY die, there will be none left. Sadly, they are converting these kids at an early age. Who here had blonde streaks in there hair, designer clothes($100+ for 1 item), designer sunglasses, etc. Sure, you will say their metrosexual, but the truth is they portray these guys as cool and popular in these magazines advertising clothes, yet their really trying to convert our very impressionable youth into gays.

Impressionable youth - just how these kids that get adopted[by gays] will more then likely end up gay. Same reason we have kids at like 8,9,10 who are already forming gangs and bashing up old women for money. Why? They see it on tv and assume it is right. Their parenting is shit, so they figure they can go and do whatever they want because their parents let them off for everything. Then it comes down to morals again. Is it morally right to let your kid walk the streets at 2 or 3 in the morning with his other little kiddie mates? Is it morally right to give your kid your smokes at a young age? Think back 50 years ago, and compare the to now. See the difference? Back then the kids got punished for doing bad/wrong things. Nothing more to say for now.

[KillSwitch_J]

You do have to prove homosexual preference exists in the animal kingdom, you made the claim and the burden lies on you, faggot.

No I don't have to prove anything. As I pointed out earlier, I'm not the one that said it was unnatural. The was Mr. wolfy. I merely pointed him to some links so he could see that research has already been done in that area, and that their opinion is homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom"as does bi and hetrosexuality.

Now back to you Mr. Misdirection. You made the claim so you must provide some kind of proof to back it up.

None of these sources indicate that homosexual preference exists in animals. You have yet to provide any evidence that they exist. The burden of proof lies only on the claimant when the claimant is not on your side.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

Isn't reading fun?:D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."

There's more out there but it's getting close to quiting time and I'm singing off till later.

[Irukanji]

Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

Bet one of those homo's mated with that "single" female. Thus, they are bisexual.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.
Bisexual.

Remember what i said about bisexuals contributing to the species still? But, from what i just read, they basically stole the eggs from the female of the species. Seems pretty violent, doesnt it?

[Clarphimous]

Fact: Homo-sapiens are the only animals with sexual preferences.

Fact: All other animals have no sexual preference.

Fact: Animals that engage in bisexual behavior do not know what they are doing, they do not have brains developed enough to understand.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You sound like a Christian. This is exactly what a lot of them believe, because the Bible told them so. God created humans in his image, and the animals for them to rule over. God gave humans souls but not animals. Etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

This is a rather popular story about homosexual penguins.

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

So there's one example.

[Struwwelpeter]

No I don't have to prove anything. As I pointed out earlier, I'm not the one that said it was unnatural. The was Mr. wolfy. I merely pointed him to some links so he could see that research has already been done in that area, and that their opinion is homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom"as does bi and hetrosexuality.

You made the claim that homosexual animals exist, thus you must prove they do. You have not.


http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

News Medical is not a medical website, it's hilarious you fall for gay propgaganda, that article offers no sources other than the main page of the University of Oslo.

Isn't reading fun? Perhaps you should give it a try sometime.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.


Link isn't working; it's a link to a news source, not a scientific website.

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."

No one is arguing that homosexuality is technically unnatural, what I am arguing is that homosexual animals exist in the animal kingdom, that is patently false.

[Struwwelpeter]

Not wrong.

Your source does not tell whether or not Roy and Silo have been caged together for their entire lives. It is clearly a one-sided, being written by the San Fagcisco Gate, it is no surprise that they would twist a story. Ducks do not feel affection for one another, they do not understand the concept of individuals, they cannot have homosexual affection for one another, the majority of the scientific community agrees with this. A quote from Killswitch_Jew's own MSNBC news article:

The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.

You faggots like owning yourselves don't you?

[Clarphimous]

Not wrong.

Your source does not tell whether or not Roy and Silo have been caged together for their entire lives. It is clearly a one-sided, being written by the San Fagcisco Gate, it is no surprise that they would twist a story. Ducks do not feel affection for one another, they do not understand the concept of individuals, they cannot have homosexual affection for one another, the majority of the scientific community agrees with this. A quote from Killswitch_Jew's own MSNBC news article:

The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.

You faggots like owning yourselves don't you?

Well... for starters they aren't ducks. They are penguins.

You're probably right about the source being biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

Here it says that Roy stayed single after separating, but Silo had a short relationship with a female penguin.

Your quote does not say anything about most of the sentence before it. It's probably because the majority of the scientific community does not agree with what you said. It does not take a brain as complex as a human's to experience emotions. Animals have the same parts of the brain that control emotions, memory, etc. What we do have over them are logical and artistic capabilities... meaning, we're a whole lot smarter.

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/NewsCentre/67668.htm

[Struwwelpeter]

Well... for starters they aren't ducks. They are penguins.

You're probably right about the source being biased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

Here it says that Roy stayed single after separating, but Silo had a short relationship with a female penguin.


I'm well aware they are penguins, I was referencing the other article that the other homo posted.

Anyway no surprise the San Fagcisco Gate and some faggot in Norway would LIE, it's not like they have an agenda or anything, we all know how moral the fags are, they eat each other's shit for Christ's sake.

How did you people ever fall in to this? What, so traumatic in your childhood caused you to desire to be fucked in the ass by another man? What a bunch of sick fucks, the only reason this is off of the diagnosis authorities is political correctness.


Your quote does not say anything about most of the sentence before it. It's probably because the majority of the scientific community does not agree with what you said. It does not take a brain as complex as a human's to experience emotions. Animals have the same parts of the brain that control emotions, memory, etc. What we do have over them are logical and artistic capabilities... meaning, we're a whole lot smarter.

It does take a human brain to experience affection, love, preference as humans know it. I'm well aware animals can experience emotions.

[Clarphimous]

I'm well aware they are penguins, I was referencing the other article that the other homo posted.

Ah, okay.

Anyway no surprise the San Fagcisco Gate and some faggot in Norway would LIE, it's not like they have an agenda or anything, we all know how moral the fags are, they eat each other's shit for Christ's sake.

Actually, the article was made in 2004 before they "broke up".

How did you people ever fall in to this? What, so traumatic in your childhood caused you to desire to be fucked in the ass by another man? What a bunch of sick fucks, the only reason this is off of the diagnosis authorities is political correctness.

I just try to speak what I think is true.

It does take a human brain to experience affection, love, preference as humans know it. I'm well aware animals can experience emotions.

They do show preference. Mainly it's the females, who choose a most suitable mate among the males out there. Love and affection is what keeps some animals mated, in order for them to stay in a relationship long enough to raise their offspring. There are evolutionary reasons for these emotions.

Yes, these relationships are instinctual. But the way it works is that the instincts give rise to emotions, which then guide the animals' general behavior.

For example, in humans we have a fear of heights. We aren't taught this -- it is something instinctual. The instinct gives rise to the fear, which keeps us away from the edge, and away from falling. However, we can also adapt to no longer fear heights if we often find ourselves in that situation.

[Struwwelpeter]

They do not show preference, animals only have sex for procreation, this can only be done with females and males, females let off mating calls or scents, behaviors etc and males are attracted to them. Any same-sex activities between animals is likely the result of chance (accident) or simple retardation. Animals do not prefer anyone, you have no scientific evidence to support that. And love and affection do not keep animals together, in most species males typically abandon females upon insemination. Your point about heights is completely irrelevant, humans can learn to surpass their fear of heights through repetition yes, animals on the other hand cannot teach themselves to "love" anything, the way humans do, as they cannot teach themselves to do so.

[Clarphimous]

They do not show preference, animals only have sex for procreation, this can only be done with females and males, females let off mating calls or scents, behaviors etc and males are attracted to them.

They do show preference. Mainly it's the females, who choose a most suitable mate among the males out there.

Any same-sex activities between animals is likely the result of chance (accident) or simple retardation. Animals do not prefer anyone, you have no scientific evidence to support that.

If they had no way to prefer one suitable mate for another, there wouldn't be such a thing as sexual selection.

And love and affection do not keep animals together, in most species males typically abandon females upon insemination.

Love and affection is what keeps some animals mated, in order for them to stay in a relationship long enough to raise their offspring.

Your point about heights is completely irrelevant, humans can learn to surpass their fear of heights through repetition yes, animals on the other hand cannot teach themselves to "love" anything, the way humans do, as they cannot teach themselves to do so.

It is completely relevant in my explanation that instincts alone do not allow enough adaptability for advanced animals. Therefore, they trigger emotions in particular circumstances to guide an animal's general behavior. These emotions are used in mating -- and they still haven't changed since we humans evolved.

Jealousy is another one. It is something that an animal feels automatically when their choice of partner appears that it may be taken by a competitor. You don't have to think about it to kick in -- it just happens. The reason is that it is triggered instinctually. And the evolutionary reason for it is obvious -- to maximize one's own success for mating.

[El Monstruo]

Homosexuals are mentally unstable, Mentally unstable people shouldn't have children.


That's the only way to protect the children, There is no way of knowing who's a good parent and who wants to sodomize a young boy.

Therefore to play it safe you need to ban all homosexuals from adopting.

[Yggdrasil]

Homosexuals are mentally unstable, Mentally unstable people shouldn't have children.


That's the only way to protect the children, There is no way of knowing who's a good parent and who wants to sodomize a young boy.

Therefore to play it safe you need to ban all homosexuals from adopting.

Ha! Get fucked! :facepalm::rolleyes:

Homosexuality =/= Paedophilia.

[Struwwelpeter]

Homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia you dumbass faggot.

http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

[Clarphimous]

Homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia you dumbass faggot.

http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

Not all male pedophiles are attracted to boys, and certainly not all homosexuals are attracted to children. Thus, they would not be synonymous.

1. Having the same or a similar meaning: synonymous words. 2. Equivalent in connotation: “a widespread impression that . . . Hollywood was synonymous with immorality” (Doris Kearns Goodwin).

Hmm... I guess maybe by the second definition you could *claim* that.

[BiggLJ]

Yeah guys, just cuz the majority of the pedophiles out there are homos, despite homos only making up 5-10% of the population, doesn't mean anything. There couldn't possibly be a correlation there.

[Struwwelpeter]

Homosexuality and pedophilia are synonymous; there is a high correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality, and the very principals of homosexuality, such as narcissism (mental and sexual), lead homosexuals to be attracted to children, the epitome of youth, the reverse of ugly, a trophy for vain, superficial faggots.

[Struwwelpeter]

Yeah guys, just cuz the majority of the pedophiles out there are homos, despite homos only making up 5-10% of the population, doesn't mean anything. There couldn't possibly be a correlation there.

That.

[Yggdrasil]

Homosexuality and pedophilia are synonymous; there is a high correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality, and the very principals of homosexuality, such as narcissism (mental and sexual), lead homosexuals to be attracted to children, the epitome of youth, the reverse of ugly, a trophy for vain, superficial faggots.

How can you say such bullshit, especially to someone who can attest first hand to this? Piss off, Jim.

[Struwwelpeter]

Hey everyone, Yggdrasil is a homosexual, now do you not find his comments, such as "anyone short of felons/[registered] child molesters" should be able to adopt children, a little bit disturbing? Was his fascination with the adoption of children by gay couples not in the least bit frightening to you?

Anyone with a keyboard can lie easily.

[Clarphimous]

When I get back home, I believe my abnormal psychology book talks about the subject of homosexuality in pedophilia. I'll type out what it says if it seems relevant.

[Yggdrasil]

Anyone with a keyboard can lie easily.

You of all people should know...

[Struwwelpeter]

Don't trouble yourself Clarphimous, I'm already well aware of what they're teaching in the universities these days, I've studied it myself.

[Dog]

Omg? Did they also observe these animals having sex with the FEMALE of their species? Yes? Thats what i thought. Bisexual =/= homosexual, since being bisexual means they are reproducing, which means their species can continue. Being all-out homo like these gays are being, isnt allowing them to reproduce, to continue with the species.


The reproduction argument is incredibly weak. Heterosexuals that can't or don't want to reproduce don't get any flack, therefore homosexuals shouldn't either. All this likely boils down to is your insecurities with your own sexuality. You have this irrational fear of being "infected", which really just means you're worried that you aren't completely straight to begin with.

[Dog]

Fact: Homo-sapiens are the only animals with sexual preferences.

Fact: All other animals have no sexual preference.

Fact: Animals that engage in bisexual behavior do not know what they are doing, they do not have brains developed enough to understand.

This is what I have implied in this thread. Now, I would appreciate it if you stopped following me around on this website calling me and even making threads about me explaining to the populace that I am a troll. You can stick around and call me gay, a nigger, etc, as that's good for me and bad for you, but you have forfeited your right to call me, and anyone else for that matter, a troll, and still be taken seriously on this website by anyone but trolls.

What are you talking about? Are you suddenly in denial of being gay or something? You've been ridiculously obvious about it up until recently. I mean...what, do you think people were fooled?

[Struwwelpeter]

PizzaNazi wishes I was gay, and he wishes I was a troll, because he cannot even fathom that people exist out there that think exactly like I do, and happen to be police officers, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, among other professions.

[Dog]

PizzaNazi wishes I was gay, and he wishes I was a troll, because he cannot even fathom that people exist out there that think exactly like I do, and happen to be police officers, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, among other professions.

I don't care if you're gay or not. But you obviously are (I'm surprised you never made an official "coming out of the closet" thread), and I'm just puzzled as to why you're lately being so belligerent against your own kind.

What's the deal, nigger?

[Struwwelpeter]

People who say that "homophobes" are gay because they're afraid of being "infected" or "insecure" are always the gayest ones behind closed doors. It's a form of projectionism (projection-protectionism) and evasion. Go ahead PizzaNazi, put the party boy music back in your signature, you just don't look right without it there.

[Dog]

People who say that "homophobes" are gay because they're afraid of being "infected" or "insecure" are always the gayest ones behind closed doors. It's a form of projectionism (projection-protectionism) and evasion. Go ahead PizzaNazi, put the party boy music back in your signature, you just don't look right without it there.

If I was gay, I wouldn't care. That's the whole point. I'm accepting of your kind because I know that your attraction to men isn't going to rub off on me at all. Sure, if you started hitting on me I wouldn't like it, but I'm not going to hate you just because you like men.

You don't need to be so hostile; most Zokleteans will accept you.

[-*.inc]

I don't know if anyone's said this, because I didn't bother reading the whole thread, but i don't think adoption should be allowed for gays.
Until these things are more accepted, there is no reason to put a child through the stress, confusion, and peer abuse of being with two dads, or moms.

I say stop being so selfish, gays, and think about the kids for a little.

[Yggdrasil]

ITT: We out-troll Jim

[Struwwelpeter]

hey errbody im piznasi dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

[Dog]

ITT: We out-troll Jim

I'm not trolling. I think I'm actually making progress with helping Jim embrace his sexuality. You should help, maybe we can finish getting through to him.

Well...okay, I'll admit I was trolling him a bit by calling him the n-word. He could very well have some black in him though. It can easily hide itself in people's family tree. :thumbsup:

But whatever, that's a topic for another day.

[Yggdrasil]

I'm not trolling. I think I'm actually making progress with helping Jim embrace his sexuality. You should help, maybe we can finish getting through to him.

Well...okay, I'll admit I was trolling him a bit by calling him the n-word. He could very well have some black in him though. It can easily hide itself in people's family tree. :thumbsup:

But whatever, that's a topic for another day.

Quadroon much?

[Zay]

http://ftw.generation.no/img/meinkampf.jpg

[Struwwelpeter]

First.

[BiggLJ]

It's kinda funny how faggots want proof of every fact that could be used to bring down queers (like how there are no homosexual animals besides humans, or how homosexuality is a mental disorder), yet they'll trot out baseless claims like the old "If you're hate homos you must be one!" Provide evidence that backs this theory or drop it.

[Dog]

It's kinda funny how faggots want proof of every fact that could be used to bring down queers (like how there are no homosexual animals besides humans, or how homosexuality is a mental disorder), yet they'll trot out baseless claims like the old "If you're hate homos you must be one!" Provide evidence that backs this theory or drop it.

As someone else pointed out earlier (or perhaps in another thread): The same psychiatric professionals who once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder now generally agree that it's not. The notion of a mental disorder is not a "yes or no" thing; it's more of a continuum with vaguely defined boundaries.

Point is: When psychiatric professionals who make the DSM don't even agree on whether certain things are truly disorders, it's absurd for a bunch of laymen to start claiming homosexuality is definitely a disorder.

Do you even know what the DSM definition for a disorder is? (Without looking it up, of course)

[BiggLJ]

As someone else pointed out earlier (or perhaps in another thread): The same psychiatric professionals who once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder now generally agree that it's not. The notion of a mental disorder is not a "yes or no" thing; it's more of a continuum with vaguely defined boundaries.

Point is: When psychiatric professionals who make the DSM don't even agree on whether certain things are truly disorders, it's absurd for a bunch of laymen to start claiming homosexuality is definitely a disorder.

Do you even know what the DSM definition for a disorder is? (Without looking it up, of course)

Yes I know what the DSM definition is as I am well read. I have already proven faggotry to be a mental disorder, obviously you missed it. To summarize:
-Faggotry is a condition that affects the mind of the afflicted, causing them to not desire the opposite sex. This prevents reproduction, a key facet of human life. Therefore, it is a mental disorder. Psychiatric professionals agreed that it was a mental disorder until the early 70s, when the freaks began to get more vocal, and it became politically incorrect to find queers repulsive.

[Dog]

Yes I know what the DSM definition is as I am well read. I have already proven faggotry to be a mental disorder, obviously you missed it. To summarize:
-Faggotry is a condition that affects the mind of the afflicted, causing them to not desire the opposite sex. This prevents reproduction, a key facet of human life.

That isn't the DSM definition of a Mental Disorder. You better go ahead and look it up.

[BiggLJ]

That isn't the DSM definition of a Mental Disorder. You better go ahead and look it up.

I know what the fuck I'm talking about, perhaps you should go back to community college and read up a bit more. If you wanna play Dr. PizzaNazi, prove me wrong. Otherwise concede and remove yourself from this discussion.

[Dog]

I know what the fuck I'm talking about,

Which is exactly why you didn't support your claim using the DSM definition? I suggested that you go ahead and google it; go for it, I won't judge.

Though I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that you really want to claim it's a mental disorder. Now, you haven't displayed homoeroticism to the same blatant extent as JFLC, Yggdrasil, and Monstruo, but I have noticed a few posts of yours here and there that made me suspect you might be gay...

Hm.

[BiggLJ]

Which is exactly why you didn't support your claim using the DSM definition? I told you to go ahead and google it; go ahead.

Though I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that you really want to claim it's a mental disorder. Now, you haven't displayed homoeroticism to the same blatant extent as JFLC, Yggdrasil, and Monstruo, but I have noticed a few posts of yours here and there that made me suspect you might be gay...

Hm.

There's nothing in my posts that suggests faggotry, you've gotten desperate if you have to resort to such petty lies.

I've already made my claim, if you believe it is incorrect then prove why.

[Resign the King]

Dude why :( (edit: posted in response to unexpected goatse)

[Clarphimous]

Dude why :( (edit: posted in response to unexpected goatse)

The website displayed that image because he hotlinked to it. The actual picture wasn't a whole lot better, though.

http://www.hotchyx.com/adult-image-hosting-05/2226meinkampf.jpg

[vehicularmanslaughter]

Yes I know what the DSM definition is as I am well read. I have already proven faggotry to be a mental disorder, obviously you missed it. To summarize:
-Faggotry is a condition that affects the mind of the afflicted, causing them to not desire the opposite sex. This prevents reproduction, a key facet of human life. Therefore, it is a mental disorder. Psychiatric professionals agreed that it was a mental disorder until the early 70s, when the freaks began to get more vocal, and it became politically incorrect to find queers repulsive.

what you are saying does make sense, in the way that it disagrees with our animal instincts to eat, drink, sleep, reproduce.
in this day and age, i think i can safely say we have progressed far beyond our animal instincts. otherwise, all retards, old people, and disabled people would have died on their own or been killed for not carrying their own weight.
we are not a society of animals. we are humans. it is debatable whether or not this is a good thing, but either way, it is true. we do not live to eat, drink, sleep, and reproduce anymore. we live to work, to make money, to contribute to our respective societies.
we have grossly overpopulated the planet, so gays, just like the tobacco companies, cancer, and AIDS are really doing us a favor, in the aspect of population control. population control is becoming increasingly necessary as every day goes by. i support it.

[BiggLJ]

what you are saying does make sense, in the way that it disagrees with our animal instincts to eat, drink, sleep, reproduce.
in this day and age, i think i can safely say we have progressed far beyond our animal instincts. otherwise, all retards, old people, and disabled people would have died on their own or been killed for not carrying their own weight.
we are not a society of animals. we are humans. it is debatable whether or not this is a good thing, but either way, it is true. we do not live to eat, drink, sleep, and reproduce anymore. we live to work, to make money, to contribute to our respective societies.
we have grossly overpopulated the planet, so gays, just like the tobacco companies, cancer, and AIDS are really doing us a favor, in the aspect of population control. population control is becoming increasingly necessary as every day goes by. i support it.

But we still follow our animal instincts to survive as a species. We still must eat, drink, sleep, and reproduce for humanity to keep going. While we may have advanced to the point where we do more than just eat, sleep, and fuck, our lives still revolve around those things. We work to make money, with which we can buy food to eat, and shelter to sleep under.

Overpopulation is a myth. What people think of as overpopulation is actually poor distribution of resources. The poor have nothing while the rich have everything.

[Clarphimous]

If that were the case, people who don't want to have kids would also be considered to have a mental disorder, no?

[Resign the King]

If that were the case, people who don't want to have kids would also be considered to have a mental disorder, no?

Or dudes who prefer cumming on their girls tits for that matter.

[vehicularmanslaughter]

But we still follow our animal instincts to survive as a species. We still must eat, drink, sleep, and reproduce for humanity to keep going. While we may have advanced to the point where we do more than just eat, sleep, and fuck, our lives still revolve around those things. We work to make money, with which we can buy food to eat, and shelter to sleep under.

Overpopulation is a myth. What people think of as overpopulation is actually poor distribution of resources. The poor have nothing while the rich have everything.

eating, drinking, sleeping, and fucking have become, for many people, inconveniences. we have come from animals, become human, and strive to be like a machine. it is ludicrous to say that the only reason people work is to eat, drink, or obtain shelter. there is far too much excess and corruption for that to be true.
I do not think we are overpopulated in relation to resources, because you are right, there is more than enough to go around, it's just not getting where it needs to go. i believe we are overpopulated as individual societies. there are too many people to look after for any kind of government or economic plan to fulfill its stated goal, whatever that may be.

If that were the case, people who don't want to have kids would also be considered to have a mental disorder, no?

what if someone didn't want to eat?

[Clarphimous]

what if someone didn't want to eat?

Hmm... in some voluntary situations in may be considered fasting. In other situations it may be a psychiatric disorder of some kind, like anorexia nervosa.

Edit: I should probably add that the differences in what they consider disorders in these cases depend on if the behavior causes harm to themselves or others.

[vehicularmanslaughter]

Hmm... in some voluntary situations in may be considered fasting. In other situations it may be a psychiatric disorder of some kind, like anorexia nervosa.

you mean its a disorder if its permanent or recurring? you think people with anorexia should go see a therapist?

but this is completely beside the point. anorexia is not something you are born with. ask any gay person, they were sure as shit born that way.
if you were born and refused to eat, they would force feed you through tubes. you would get used to it, and you might eat on your own eventually.
a non-eater born into an eating society. a gay born into a straight society.
the only difference is that reproduction isn't necessary for the individual to survive.
if getting fucked wasn't awesome, not nearly as many people would do it.

[Clarphimous]

you mean its a disorder if its permanent or recurring? you think people with anorexia should go see a therapist?

but this is completely beside the point. anorexia is not something you are born with. ask any gay person, they were sure as shit born that way.
if you were born and refused to eat, they would force feed you through tubes. you would get used to it, and you might eat on your own eventually.
a non-eater born into an eating society. a gay born into a straight society.
the only difference is that reproduction isn't necessary for the individual to survive.
if getting fucked wasn't awesome, not nearly as many people would do it.

Hmm... lemme just quote from my psychiatry textbook. It says that defining abnormal behavior is a combination of several factors:
- norm violation (dependent on culture)
- statistical rarity
- personal discomfort
- maladaptive behavior

But there are also some general categories for mental disorders to fall into (quote from book):
1. Behavior that is harmful to the self or that is harmful to others without serving the interests of the self
2. Poor reality contact -- for example, beliefs that most people do not hold or sensory perceptions of things that most people do not perceive
3. Emotional reactions inappropriate to the person's situation
4. Erratic behavior -- that is, behavior that shifts unpredictably

But these aren't all encompassing, either. There are several disorders that fall under sexual dysfunctions, paraphilias, and gender identity disorders.

At the beginning of that section of the book, it discusses homosexuality. It isn't a clear-cut case due to the violation of social norms in certain cultures. It also talks about how things like masturbation and non-vaginal sex were considered sexual disorders in the past.

Regardless, even if we decide to call it a "mental disorder" that doesn't mean that we need to treat it. The need to have it treated depends on whether it is causing personal discomfort, or harm to oneself or others.

[Rolf]

Rolf says "you can't be whole without a hole". This is Rolf's view on said matter.

[Hobo]

Now I am not one to support marriage of any form, but there is no reason that two human beings should not be allowed to engage in marriage simply because of their sexual preference.

I also think they should be allowed to adopt. Firstly, orphanages are bulging at the seems with abandoned children that shitty(HETEROSEXUAL) parents have written off. Secondly, I know a lot of people in their late teens/early twenties that have children and they are HORRIBLE parents. Why should a couple with the potential to not only give an unprivileged orphan a chance at life but to also be a good parent, be denied?

[Dog]

There's nothing in my posts that suggests faggotry, you've gotten desperate if you have to resort to such petty lies.

I've already made my claim, if you believe it is incorrect then prove why.

It's already been established that you're in denial. The point is, to outside observers, you clearly have some homosexual tendencies. I don't care whether you believe it now, but eventually you'll have to come to terms with it, buddy boy.

Anyways, like I told you before, you are making up your own definition of a mental disorder and trying to pass it off as though it's official.

Since you are claiming that homosexuality is a disorder, then the burden is on you to prove it in context of the current DSM's definition of a disorder. Fortunately for other posters, I happen to know what the current DSM criteria is for a disorder, so I know when you're bullshitting.

Try again.

[ants in my poptarts]

Older people have knowledge which can be shared to better serve our species continuation. Tricks they learnt to make life easier, more enjoyable, etc. If they didnt survive past 30, then they wouldnt know enough about the world to help us out. But since they do, they are contributing. Look at all the major inventors. Most of them are over the age of 25 atleast, most going into their 40's and 50's.

And here's where I tell you a homosexual can do those things too. And you say they can't for some retarded reason.

And fuck the taxpayers. The money either get's wasted on some kid for 18 years, or goes to paying for some dumb politician, etc who supports a bill for the gays.

Yea fuck the taxpayers.

btw: I'm not entirely sure you're serious, but I have nothing better to do.

[BiggLJ]

It's already been established that you're in denial. The point is, to outside observers, you clearly have some homosexual tendencies. I don't care whether you believe it now, but eventually you'll have to come to terms with it, buddy boy.

Anyways, like I told you before, you are making up your own definition of a mental disorder and trying to pass it off as though it's official.

Since you are claiming that homosexuality is a disorder, then the burden is on you to prove it in context of the current DSM's definition of a disorder. Fortunately for other posters, I happen to know what the current DSM criteria is for a disorder, so I know when you're bullshitting.

Try again.

Not to outside observers. You're one observer. You can't speak for anyone other than yourself. Since you're claiming there is evidence of homosexual tendencies in my posts, the burden of proof is obviously on you. So prove it. You won't be able to, because you're making it up.

You may think you're clever but it's clear you're trying to cover up your own insecurities. You support faggots, which is a feminine tendency only found in women and fags. You claim you'd be fine with it if you were gay, something no straight male would ever say. And you spend your time making baseless accusations of faggotry in others. Lets face facts here, you're a queer trying to masquerade as a straight so people won't think of you as a complete joke.

I proved it was a disorder according to the current DSM definition. I'm beginning to think you know nothing of the DSM, since you clearly cannot comprehend its definition of a mental illness.

[Yggdrasil]

To be terribly honest, I would be very, very hard-pressed to ever consider adopting a child. Regardless of my orientation, if I were to rear a child, I would want my blood, not some random trash that couldn't support a child. Surrogate mother, perhaps. No, I would not want an adopted child under most circumstances, I would prefer my own.

[ants in my poptarts]

Since you're claiming there is evidence of ..... the burden of proof is obviously on you.


Can you explain this to some of the other posters here?

[Dog]

Not to outside observers. You're one observer. You can't speak for anyone other than yourself. Since you're claiming there is evidence of homosexual tendencies in my posts, the burden of proof is obviously on you. So prove it. You won't be able to, because you're making it up.

It's not worth the time; I might do it later though. It's really a common opinion around here, and I'm sure on some level you are conscious of it. Don't worry though, I don't have a problem with gays (closet homosexuals or open ones), and I don't think most of the other site members do either.


I proved it was a disorder according to the current DSM definition. I'm beginning to think you know nothing of the DSM, since you clearly cannot comprehend its definition of a mental illness.

The thing about talking out of your ass is that it only works if everyone is talking out of their ass. Pro-tip: A major aspect of the definition for a psychological disorder is that is subjective and dependent on culture, the times, etc. The fact that you didn't mention that, and the fact that you were talking about "incapable of reproduction" (which a) is false, and b) is irrelevant to a psych disorder) stops your bullshit dead in its tracks.

Now, if you'd like to reformulate your argument using the actual standards for a disorder, be my guest. Until then, stop defecating on your keyboard in our presence.

[BiggLJ]

Can you explain this to some of the other posters here?

If he is going to claim posts of mine show homosexual tendencies, he must also provide evidence, otherwise he is just making baseless claims (which he is).

It's not worth the time; I might do it later though. It's really a common opinion around here, and I'm sure on some level you are conscious of it. Don't worry though, I don't have a problem with gays (closet homosexuals or open ones), and I don't think most of the other site members do either.

To sum it up, you can't. How surprising.

The thing about talking out of your ass is that it only works if everyone is talking out of their ass. Pro-tip: A major aspect of the definition for a psychological disorder is that is subjective and dependent on culture, the times, etc. The fact that you didn't mention that, and the fact that you were talking about "incapable of reproduction" (which a) is false, and b) is irrelevant to a psych disorder) stops your bullshit dead in its tracks.

Now, if you'd like to reformulate your argument using the actual standards for a disorder, be my guest. Until then, stop defecating on your keyboard in our presence.

They are incapable of reproduction, unless you are going to claim that homosexuality is a choice. It is relevant to a disorder because it is a disability/impairment, which is one of the criteria for a disorder.

[ants in my poptarts]

If he is going to claim posts of mine show homosexual tendencies, he must also provide evidence, otherwise he is just making baseless claims (which he is).

Yea, anyone making a claim must support it. To demand evidence for something not existing(your homosexuality) is illogical.

[Dog]

If he is going to claim posts of mine show homosexual tendencies, he must also provide evidence, otherwise he is just making baseless claims (which he is).

To sum it up, you can't. How surprising.

Like I said, it's common knowledge. I figured it wouldn't be news to you. :shrug:


They are incapable of reproduction, unless you are going to claim that homosexuality is a choice. It is relevant to a disorder because it is a disability/impairment, which is one of the criteria for a disorder.

Homosexuals are not incapable of reproduction. Their penises still work, their sperm still works, they just aren't interested in having sex with women.

As I mentioned earlier, that is an incredibly weak argument, as you don't apply the same standard to non-reproducing (through will or handicap) straight people.

http://www.mycamelotschool.com/images/Little%20Engine%20that%20Could.jpg

Keep on trying.

[Clarphimous]

From my abnormal psychology book.

Classifying Sexual Behavior

Compared with other cultures, Western culture has been sexually repressive. For example, while the ancient Greeks not only tolerated but actually glorified homosexuality, the Judeo-Christian tradition that supplanted Greco-Roman civilization has, for the most part, condemned same-sex relationships. Today, church doctrine on sexual morality has relaxed somewhat. Nevertheless, most present-day denominations still place restrictions on sexual activities that circumvent or replace coitus, or penile-vaginal intercourse, within the context of marriage.

Western sexual mores are derived not only from religious dogma but also from the writings of experts on mental health and sexology, the scientific study of sexuality. Some writiings were notably open-minded. Magnus Hirschfeld, a German sexologist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, argued that homosexuality was a normal form of sexual orientation and that the rights of homosexuals should be protected. Other experts were far more restrictive, however. One of the most influential early psychiatric works on sex, Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis (1886/1965a) condemned masturbation as a psychologically dangerous practice. In his opinion, masturbation halted the development of normal erotic instincts and thus led to homosexuality. Krafft-Ebing regarded homosexuality as a form of pathopsychology. In his view, and in Freud's, the only genuinely healthy, mature, and normal sexual outlet was coitus. Succeeding generations of psychologists and psychiatrists concured. In DSM-II, published in 1968, people whose sexual interests were "directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex [or] toward sexual acts not usually associated with coitus" were classified as suffering from sexual disorders.

However, there is little to indicate that human beings are programmed biologically to confine their sexual gratification to coitus. On the contrary, while the sex drive itself is inborn, the direction that it will take is partly a result of socialization. While Western culture considers the female breast an erotic object, many societies consider it sexually neutral. While homosexuality is generally frowned on in our society, in other societies it is not only accepted but actually institutionalized as the proper sexual outlet for adolescent boys (Herdt & Stoller, 1990).

As for freedom of sexual expression, an instructive contrast is provided by two small villages, one in Polynesia and one on an island off the coast of Ireland. In the Irish village of Inis Beag, a researcher (Messenger, 1971) who interviewed the inhabitants over 19 months found that they had no apparent knowledge of tongue kissing, oral-genital contact, premarital coitus, or extramarital coitus. The idea of a man putting his mouth on the woman's breast, or the woman stimulating the man's penis with her hand, was also unheard of. Intercourse was considered a health risk and was achieved quickly, without removing underwear. Female orgasm was apparently unknown. By contrast, in the same year another researcher (Marshall, 1971) reported that, on the Polynesian island of Mangaia, copulation was "a princple concern of the Mangaian of either sex" (p. 116). Mangaians began full-scale sexual activity at 13 years, after receiving detailed and enthusiastic instruction from their elders. Sexual technique and sexual anatomy were objects of connoisseurship: "The average Mangaian youth has fully as detailed a knowledge . . . of the gross anatomy of the penis and vagina as does a European physician" (Marshall, 1971, p. 110). For males, the average rate of orgasm at age 18 was 3 per night, 7 nights a week; at age 28, 2 per night, 5 to 6 nights a week. Women had a higher rate, since the male's goal in intercourse was to bring the woman to orgasm several times before he himself reached climax. All Mangaian women were orgasmic. When told that many European and American women do not experience orgasm, Mangaians typically asked whether this did not impair their health. In short, the definition of what is sexually normal and abnormal in Mangaia was almost the opposite of that in Inis Beag. These two cultures are extremes -- perhaps the most sexually permissive and the most sexually repressive societies known to Western research. But they illustrate a crucial point: Human sexual behavior, viewed across cultures, is extremely variable.

Within a culture, attitudes toward sexuality may change over time. Our own society is far more open about sex today than it was just a few decades ago, for example. Even in less tolerant times, however, sexual behavior does not necessarily conform to declared standards of sexual morality or normality. The famous Kinsey reports (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, et al., 1953) revealed that many Americans had engaged in culturally prohibited sexual activities. More than 90 percent of the males Kinsey interviewed had masturbated; over 80 percent of the men and 50 percent of the women in his samples had participated in premarital sex; and oral sex was not a rare occurence. In the 1940s and 1950s, when the Kinsey reports were published, these findings were shocking to many people. Today, they would be considered unremarkable.

In its early editions, the DSM listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder, along with pedophilia, fetishism, sadism, and so forth. Then in 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted to drop homosexuality per se from the list. The trustees' report described homosexuality as "a normal form of sexual life" (American Psychiatric Association, 1974). Still, the DSM retained a category called "ego-dystonic homosexuality disorder" for individuals who themselves rejected their homosexuality and wanted to become exclusively heterosexual. Many psychologists, together with gay rights groups, objected to this category as well. In their view, homosexuals who rejected their sexual orientation did so because they had internalized negative stereotypes -- stereotypes reinforced by psychiatric labeling, even in the milder form of "ego-dystonic homosexuality disorder." At the same time, more and more research was accumulating to show that there was no justification for regarding homosexuality as a pathological pattern. As these studies showed, homosexuals are no more prone to psychopathology than are matched groups of heterosexuals (Hooker, 1957; Paul, Gonsiorek, & Hotvedt, 1982; Saghir & Robins, 1969; Saghir, Robins, & Walbran, 1969). Moreover, there is no typical homosexual personality; homosexuals, both male and female, differ as much from one another in personality as do heterosexuals (Hooker, 1957; Wilson, 1984). In response to such fiindings -- together with the fact that ego-dystonic homosexuality was rarely diagnosed, anyway -- the APA in 1986 voted to drop homosexuality from the DSM altogether. Today, in DSM-IV-TR's listing of sexual disorders, there remains a residual category, "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" (p. 582), to cover problems not included in other categories, and one of the examples given is "persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation," but otherwise the manual makes no reference to homosexuality.

Nevertheless, the catalog of psychiatrically recognized sexual disorders remains long. The remainders of this chapter is devoted to these conditions.

[Struwwelpeter]

It's really sad they're teaching these lies in the universities. No major psychology organization has ever removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM or any other diagnostic tool because of scientific research, it was a political fiasco fueled by the sound of a queer screaming at the top of his HIV-positive lungs and times that were changing for the worst. It's sad that they're teaching that in some societies homosexuality is accepted as normal based on two small communities on Earth. If you want to infiltrate an destroy a nation, the textbooks are where you want to wage this war, and that is clearly evident.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/APAHomosexualUrbanLegend.pdf

Never be fooled that homosexuality was taken off of the books because of any evidence that it is not a mental disorder. It is.

[BiggLJ]

Yea, anyone making a claim must support it. To demand evidence for something not existing(your homosexuality) is illogical.

Is this supposed to be some sort of smartass comment based on earlier arguments of mine?

Like I said, it's common knowledge. I figured it wouldn't be news to you. :shrug:

Hahahahahah, how humorous you are with your nonchalance! Fuck you it's obvious you're a fucking freak trying to bring me down with you, not gonna happen. You have no evidence, you keep trying to dance around that like a bitch, you're probably some fucking queer who got his ribs broke by a few straight soldiers. And if you somehow are straight, you're betraying your own kind like a coward. But I doubt that's true considering you've made it obvious you're a pathetic faggot.

Homosexuals are not incapable of reproduction. Their penises still work, their sperm still works, they just aren't interested in having sex with women.

As I mentioned earlier, that is an incredibly weak argument, as you don't apply the same standard to non-reproducing (through will or handicap) straight people.

http://www.mycamelotschool.com/images/Little%20Engine%20that%20Could.jpg

Keep on trying.

How do you know I don't apply the same standard to non-reproducing straights?

They are incapable, because to be homosexual is to not have sex with the opposite gender. If they have sex with a person of the opposite gender, they're not homo now are they?

[ants in my poptarts]

Is this supposed to be some sort of smartass comment based on earlier arguments of mine?

Not your arguement. Some other dumbasses who don't understand debating. I figured if it was coming from you it wouldn't be ignored as sodomite propaganda.

[BiggLJ]

Not your arguement. Some other dumbasses who don't understand debating.

Oh ok, just checking.

[Clarphimous]

They are incapable, because to be homosexual is to not have sex with the opposite gender. If they have sex with a person of the opposite gender, they're not homo now are they?

Well, there's homosexual behavior, but usually when one says that they are gay, they mean that they are attracted to people of the same sex. They can still choose to marry people of the opposite sex, such as for religious reasons.

[Clarphimous]

It's really sad they're teaching these lies in the universities. No major psychology organization has ever removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM or any other diagnostic tool because of scientific research, it was a political fiasco fueled by the sound of a queer screaming at the top of his HIV-positive lungs and times that were changing for the worst. It's sad that they're teaching that in some societies homosexuality is accepted as normal based on two small communities on Earth. If you want to infiltrate an destroy a nation, the textbooks are where you want to wage this war, and that is clearly evident.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/APAHomosexualUrbanLegend.pdf

Never be fooled that homosexuality was taken off of the books because of any evidence that it is not a mental disorder. It is.

The Traditional Values Coalition -- Empowering People of Faith Through Knowledge.

Hmm...

I'll admit, my abnormal psychology book often tries too hard to be politically correct. But I'm not about to trust something that is hosted on a conservative religious website.

[Dog]

How do you know I don't apply the same standard to non-reproducing straights?

Even if we ignore your own homosexual tendencies, if you applied the standard to non-reproductive straight behavior, you would condemn masturbation, condom-use, and wasting hours online instead of reproducing.

The fact of the matter is that your hatred/self-hatred for gays is not rooted in logic. Your upbringing instilled a gut-reaction in you, and you're trying to justify it (poorly, I might add) after the fact.


They are incapable, because to be homosexual is to not have sex with the opposite gender. If they have sex with a person of the opposite gender, they're not homo now are they?

Have you really gone your entire life without knowing what "incapable" means? A homosexual is just as capable of reproducing as a straight person of not reproducing. Period.

[Struwwelpeter]

The Traditional Values Coalition -- Empowering People of Faith Through Knowledge.

Hmm...

I'll admit, my abnormal psychology book often tries too hard to be politically correct. But I'm not about to trust something that is hosted on a conservative religious website.

That's like saying you would not trust scientific evidence that has been hosted on conservative websites; the conservatives are not the one's creating the evidence, they are using it as basis for their arguments. You say you will not trust something hosted on a conservative website; yet you have posted links from the SF gate, a left-wing news outlet? Do not criticize those that host the information until you have determined it is fraudulent.

[Clarphimous]

That's like saying you would not trust scientific evidence that has been hosted on conservative websites; the conservatives are not the one's creating the evidence, they are using it as basis for their arguments. You say you will not trust something hosted on a conservative website; yet you have posted links from the SF gate, a left-wing news outlet? Do not criticize those that host the information until you have determined it is fraudulent.

Okay, I read it. It says that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was politically motivated. I can believe that. However, it also says that there was no scientific evidence to support the idea that it is not disordered. This sort of claim is typical of them. Reminds me of their claims about evolution. My psychology book did provide some sources about the subject.

Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31.

Paul, W. M., Gonsiorek, J. C., & Hotvedt, M. E. (Eds.) (1982). Homosexuality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Saghir, M. T. & Robins, E. (1969). Homosexuality: I. Sexual behavior of the female homosexual. Archives of General Psychiatry, 20, 192-201.

Saghir, M. T., Robins E., & Wallbran, B. (1969). Homosexuality: II. Sexual behavior of the male homosexual. Archives of General Psychiatry, 21, 219-229.

The most I could find of the first one online is the abstract. It is available at the library, though.

Thirty male homosexuals were matched with 30 heterosexual males for age, IQ, and education. Their Rorschachs, TATs, and MAPS were given to two Rorschach experts and a TAT and MAPS expert for ratings of adjustment. The protocols were also presented in pairs to the judges to see if they could distinguish the homosexual and heterosexual protocols. Agreement between judges of the adjustment ratings was fair, but the Rorschach experts could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual protocols any better than chance. The TAT and MAPS protocols of the homosexuals could be distinguished far better than chance since nearly all the homosexual subjects gave at least one homosexual story. The two groups did not differ significantly in adjustment ratings. The author concludes: "1. Homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist. Its forms are as varied as are those of heterosexuality. 2. Homosexuality may be a deviation in sexual pattern which is within the normal range, psychologically." (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2004 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

I couldn't find the 2nd one in the library catalog. I saw several other books about homosexuality by Gonsiorek on Amazon.com, but I don't think any of them were that specific one.

The third and fourth ones are at the library. I found a little bit from each one on the Interwebs.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/20/2/192

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/2/219

[Struwwelpeter]

Non-sequitur/misconduct study; homosexuality is not identifiable as an entity through those testing methods as the symptoms of homosexuality are no longer listed under the diagnostics thanks to political correctness. If you want the evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, just check the DSM's and other diagnostic resources prior to the late 1980s/1970s.

[Clarphimous]

Non-sequitur/misconduct study; homosexuality is not identifiable as an entity through those testing methods as the symptoms of homosexuality are no longer listed under the diagnostics thanks to political correctness. If you want the evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, just check the DSM's and other diagnostic resources prior to the late 1980s/1970s.

Those were the studies that were part of what made them remove homosexuality from the DSM.

[Struwwelpeter]

They were misconduct studies that were used to propagate the the homosexual agenda to have their disease removed from the DSM; you do not remove a mental disorder that has been established for decades with a study involving thirty homosexuals.

[Clarphimous]

They were misconduct studies that were used to propagate the the homosexual agenda to have their disease removed from the DSM; you do not remove a mental disorder that has been established for decades with a study involving thirty homosexuals.

I've already admitted that a good portion of the reason was political, but I'm just saying there were studies to support it.

Here's something from Wikipedia about the study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker
Evelyn Hooker (September 2, 1907–November 18, 1996) was a North American psychologist most notable for her 1957 paper "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" in which she administered psychological tests to groups of self-identified homosexuals and heterosexuals and asked experts, based on those tests alone, to select the homosexual people. The experiment, which other researchers subsequently repeated, demonstrates that most self-identified homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population.

(bolding is mine)

And...

Experiment

Although, since 1954, Hooker had collected data about her homosexual friends, she felt this was of little value because of the lack of scientific rigor attached to the gathering of this data. She applied for a grant from the NIMH which she received.

She gathered two groups of men: one group would be exclusively homosexual, the other exclusively heterosexual. She contacted the Mattachine Society to find homosexual men. She had greater difficulty finding heterosexual men. She also had to use her home to conduct the interview to protect people's anonymity.

Hooker used three different psychological tests for her study: the TAT, the Make-a-Picture-Story test (MAPS test), and the Rorschach inkblot test.

After a year of work, Hooker presented a team of 3 expert evaluators with 60 unmarked psychological profiles. She decided to leave the interpretation of her results to other people so as to avoid her own prejudice.

First, she contacted Bruno Klopfer, an expert on Rorschach tests to see if he would be able to identify the sexual orientation of people through their results at those tests. He couldn't.

Then Edwin Shneidman, creator of the MAPS test, also analyzed the 60 profiles. It took him six months and he too found that both groups were highly similar in their psychological make-up.

The third expert was Dr Mortimer Mayer who was so certain he would be able to tell the two groups apart that he went through the process twice.

The three evaluators agreed that in terms of adjustment, there were no differences between the members of each group.

In 1956 Hooker presented the results of her research in a paper delivered to the American Psychological Association's convention in Chicago.

Hooker was the first social scientist to do research and write on the gay community.

Her studies contributed to a change in the attitudes of the psychological community towards homosexuality and to the American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from its handbook of disorders in 1973. This in turn helped change the attitude of society at large.

[Struwwelpeter]

Perhaps you don't understand, the Rorschach inkblot test, TATs, and MAPS have all been shown to be bullshit. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because of political pressure from the homosexual community and a few kikes/homosexuals/homosexual sympathizers pushed long and hard enough to do so. It was an act that was guided by nothing more than intimidation. Those tests showed nothing, the old DSM's among other diagnostics did indeed show that homosexuality was a mental disorder, and it is. The manner in which Hooker gathered the information wasn't even ethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test#Criticisms

[ants in my poptarts]

I've already admitted that a good portion of the reason was political, but I'm just saying there were studies to support it.

Here's something from Wikipedia about the study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker


(bolding is mine)

And...


Dude, there is no reason to talk to Jim. As soon as he believes himself to be losing he will go off topic, make an excuse as to why you don't deserve an answer, or start throwing irrelevant articles at you in the hopes that, out of laziness, you won't read it and realize its utter shit.

[Struwwelpeter]

Evelyn Hooker = homosexual kike, fitting last name

[ants in my poptarts]

Evelyn Hooker = homosexual kike, fitting last name

Hey! It's that idiotic off topic response I was talking about.

[Clarphimous]

Perhaps you don't understand, the Rorschach inkblot test, TATs, and MAPS have all been shown to be bullshit. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because of political pressure from the homosexual community and a few kikes/homosexuals/homosexual sympathizers pushed long and hard enough to do so. It was an act that was guided by nothing more than intimidation. Those tests showed nothing, the old DSM's among other diagnostics did indeed show that homosexuality was a mental disorder, and it is. The manner in which Hooker gathered the information wasn't even ethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test#Criticisms

That's not the explanation you gave before. You said the study was invalid because "homosexuality is not identifiable as an entity through those testing methods as the symptoms of homosexuality are no longer listed under the diagnostics thanks to political correctness." I showed that this was incorrect because the studies were done before it was removed from the DSM.

Anyway, I think I can agree on the inkblot test, at least for the version they used back then. Apparently the newer Exner system is more objective, but I'm not sure which version she used in the study. The TAT test does have criticisms, but as the Wikipedia article says, it is still widely used in psychiatric research, so apparently it does have its utility. I couldn't find much about MAPS, but I'm guessing it's similar to the TAT.

How was the method that Hooker gathered her information unethical? It says she protected the privacy of the participants, and I'm pretty sure they were volunteers.

And of course the old DSMs would describe homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was on the list of disorders, so they would need some justification. But may I remind you that in the DSM II, published in 1968, sexual behavior involving ANYTHING besides coitus was also considered a sexual disorder? Masturbation, included. I think that shows that its criteria for sexual disorders wasn't that great.

[Struwwelpeter]

You have misinterpreted my post, but to your credit I did make a spelling error, might I suggest "and" instead of "as"? Homosexuality is not identifiable by those testing methods, as they are the equivalent of e-meters.

I bet she drew them herself.

[Dog]

Non-sequitur/misconduct study; homosexuality is not identifiable as an entity through those testing methods as the symptoms of homosexuality are no longer listed under the diagnostics thanks to political correctness. If you want the evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, just check the DSM's and other diagnostic resources prior to the late 1980s/1970s.

Is BiggLJ your alter-ego or something?

The concept of mental disorder is defined by psychologists. At one point homosexually fit with the criteria, and now it no longer does. End of story. After DSM-V comes out, there will probably be a gradual demand for various paraphilias (including pedophilia) to be removed.

The entire concept of a mental disorder always has been subjective in regard to the norms of the culture. Hell, the only reason that religious people aren't regarded as Schizophrenics is because the DSM acknowledges that religious delusions are socially acceptable.