How far have we come with homosexuality?

[RockNroll]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "all over this thread" constitutes a lack of specificity. On the contrary, it was meant to convey that every single positive claim you've made flies in the face of reason and all available evidence (putting the burden of proof squarely on your head).

In other words, posting specific instances one by one would be a pretty big waste of time, considering it's all retarded.

 

[SnakeTongue]

FAIL......

...epic.

your article is bunk.

The whole article and web page can be verified in the Internet or local library using the references cited. The subjects addressed are well written, with enough rational language and scientific notation.

promoting fear of a group is phobic, in this case 'homophobic'.

If...

pho·bic (fbk)
adj.
Of, relating to, arising from, or having a phobia.
n.
One who has a phobia.

So...

Patient discussion about phobic.
Q. what is phobia? well when you have scary to someone or something

A. A phobia is fear from something- an object, a person or a situation, that makes the person feel scared to face that certain situation, and even try and avoid it- for example- some people are scared of closed places ("agoraphobia")- they cannot sit at the cinema or at an elevator because of the fear of not being able to escape if needed. Some people have a social phobia and they cannot face a crowd, or perform in front of a crowd (some can't even speak out loud in front of other people).

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/phobic

Which article in the web page suggest the reader in face of perceived homosexual conduct "feel scared to face that" and "even try and avoid it"?

If you cannot provide an example, you statement is false.

The whole web page is evidence that homosexuals should be not avoided and quite attention must be given to what homosexuals organized groups are doing.

there is no gay conspiracy.

Yes, it is no gay conspiracy.

you certainly have not made your point.

I made and you cannot address.

you asked me a question....i answered it.

Whatever...

your dancing around the issue makes it no more real.

I am not dancing. I am debating in a forum in the cyberspace called JREF.

you are a bigot. period.

Whatever...

a homophobic bigot at that....

Whatever...

As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. The way to expose this fact is to require the advocates of the "gay" position to state the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal that they accept no opposition to their agenda as legitimate.

Scott D. Lively

btw....many of us prefer the word queer....does that make you even more homophobic?

Whatever...

 

[SnakeTongue]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "all over this thread" constitutes a lack of specificity. On the contrary, it was meant to convey that every single positive claim you've made flies in the face of reason and all available evidence (putting the burden of proof squarely on your head).

In other words, posting specific instances one by one would be a pretty big waste of time, considering it's all retarded.

Still, you did not addressed any subject pertinent to the thread. That means I understand your answer as:

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

[Emet]

<snip>
Being gay is not like skin color. It is not possible to perceive the sexual orientation of an individual without enough time to gather evidence and reach a conclusion.


This is forum in the cyberspace. It is not empathy here, except in the abstract form of signs and symbols.

Empathy require face-to-face interaction, when different individuals can understand better each other with their full five senses.
<snip>

1. Skin color is not always so clearly delineated as to a determination of race. There are light skinned people of color who may not share common characteristics, be it hair texture or facial features.

2. It is first about perception. It is human nature that we often classify and assort people based on how they look, how they act, or even what their surname may be. It may be inaccurate, but we do it anyways. Every. Single. Day.

3. Empathy does not require face-to face interaction. I could copy various dictionary definitions, or link to a Google search of articles about empathy vs. sympathy. Views expressed through writings are no guarantee that the conclusions I draw are an accurate picture of the poster, but that is all I have to go on.

Empathy is not merely a neatly defined word. it is a concept. While I certainly could be wrong, I can only conclude through your writing that you do not understand the concept. I do not have to meet a poor person to empathize with them and their plight. I do not need to know, encounter, or talk to a homeless person to empathize with them. I do not need to personally know a marginalized or attacked group of people to feel empathy, compassion, or understanding at to what it might be like if I were in their shoes.

<snip>
Yes, it is no gay conspiracy.

And yet you link to a page titled "The Gay Conspiracy."

It is true that it is not possible to perceive sexual orientation on site. But I wonder if you watched Joel Burn's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4

When he discussed his personal life, he noted that he was bullied and roughed up as he was coming to terms with his homosexuality. He was not yet out, but he was perceived to be gay and worried that what he was feeling inside was starting to show outwardly.

He also described a teen who committed suicide because he was perceived as gay--he was not self-described as such--no one (other than perhaps his family) even knows if the boy was gay. He certainly could have been bullied about something else and the result may have been tragic.

I do not know you--nor do I know how those around you perceive you--how you treat people and interact with others in your life or in the world.

But your postings on this thread express ideas and opinions--and I can only draw conclusions from them, whether they are accurate or not.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that not only do you not understand empathy, you are not empathic towards others.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Empathy is not merely a neatly defined word. it is a concept. While I certainly could be wrong, I can only conclude through your writing that you do not understand the concept. I do not have to meet a poor person to empathize with them and their plight. I do not need to know, encounter, or talk to a homeless person to empathize with them. I do not need to personally know a marginalized or attacked group of people to feel empathy, compassion, or understanding at to what it might be like if I were in their shoes.

Amazing argument, but off-topic.

And yet you link to a page titled "The Gay Conspiracy."

Yes, I recommend anyone following this thread read that web page, which is changing the way I understand homosexuality and improving my skill of critical thinking regarding sexual issues.

It is true that it is not possible to perceive sexual orientation on site. But I wonder if you watched Joel Burn's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4

If it is true that sexual orientation in the early ages cannot be perceived without gather enough evidence, the declaration of Joel Burns is irrelevant.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that not only do you not understand empathy, you are not empathic towards others.

This thread is not about me. It is about "how far have we (human beings) come with homosexuality".

Stop to focus over my character and focus over the subject in debate, including any irrational statement I made regarding homosexuality.

I am glad in review my mistakes and learn from that.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Yes it does. You say homosexuality is a paraphilia, professional psychiatrists and psychologists all over the world disagree with you.

I like the implicit "the whole world is right and you is wrong" in your answer.

Anyway...

In early 1973, a group superheaded by several leaders of the A.P.A., other psychiatrists, and members of the Gay Activists Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis undertook to influence the Nomenclature Committee of the A.P.A. at a closed meeting at Columbia University Psychiatric Institute by requesting deletion of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(9).

http://www.narth.com/docs/annals.html

It was later found that the Research Council of the APA had not investigated the issue properly and the Nomenclature Committee had never formally approved the change and the de-classification had been achieved without the general membership ever fully knowing what was going on. Subsequently, in 1981,sixty-nine percent of psychiatrists disagreed to the change and still considered homosexual a pathological adaptation. Moreover, it was not until 1992 that the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its International Classification of Diseases. Thus, it appears the rest of the world doubted the APA 1973 decision for nearly two decades. Now influential voices within the psychiatric field consider the APA to be too politically correct, bureaucratic and too obeisant to special interests. Thus, its professional standing is harmed.

http://www.gayconspiracy.info/historypolitics.html

While there was obvious pressure coming from the gay community to change the DSM, there was also something happening inside the APA. It seems from Spiegel’s story that the psychiatrists of the Gay PA were for the most part content to gather in secret and accept the traditional designation of homosexuals as sick, but others had begun to mobilize.

http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1973-removal-of-homosexuality-from-the-dsm

Conclusion: homosexuality was declassified as paraphilia because few homosexuals inside the American Psychiatric Association, without the full approval of its members, decided that sexual orientation regarding homosexuality was not a mental illness.

I think many psychologists and psychiatrists around the world will agree with me.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I think many psychologists and psychiatrists around the world will agree with me.

Then surely you will have no problem pointing out a few of them?

 

[bikerdruid]

I like the implicit "the whole world is right and you is wrong" in your answer.
.

well, the world of science and human rights is correct, and you are wrong...is accurate.

 

[SnakeTongue]

well, the world of science and human rights is correct, and you are wrong...is accuarate.

Prove it.

In no moment in this thread you had presented any evidence to prove that I am completely wrong in my statements.

You have been resorting only to ad hominem comments until now.

 

[bikerdruid]

Prove it.

In no moment in this thread you had presented any evidence to prove that I am completely wrong in my statements.

You have been resorting only to ad hominem comments until now.

don't need to.
being queer is not a choice; it is not an illness; it is just the way we are.
science has proved that conclusively in the last 30 years.

btw....science has also proved that the earth is not flat, and is not the centre of the universe.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Now I am a "moronic irrational homophobic bigot drivel".

No, he said your posts contain "moronic irrational homophobic bigot drivel".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

He was addressing your posts. It was not an ad-hominem.

I think many psychologists and psychiatrists around the world will agree with me.

I think that any who do will be in a distinct minority of their profession.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Then surely you will have no problem pointing out a few of them?

Right now will be difficult to me produce a list. I am still reading and learning plenty of information.

But I suggest Dr. Robert Spitzer as good starting point to answer your question:

Dr. Robert Spitzer - Homosexuals Can Change
This video clip from a 2004 interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer discusses his study of people who reported changes in aspects of homosexual orientation. In this clip, he discusses the purpose of the study, why he believed his participants, and what he learned from the study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6T4ka7TxU

It is also necessary to say something about the role of Doctor Robert Sptizer. Significantly, it was his reforming zeal and direct personal intervention that helped delete homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental disorders back in 1973. Then he was a hero of the gay community, but not any more!

http://www.gayconspiracy.info/historypolitics.html

 

[Mirrorglass]

Right now will be difficult to me produce a list. I am still reading and learning plenty of information.

Just be sure to get information from several sources, and not just one website with a clear agenda.

But I suggest Dr. Robert Spitzer as good starting point to answer your question:

Could you paraphrase his ideas, namely, why he considers homosexuality a pathology? I really don't like watching youtube videos to get information; it's simply too easy to make a misleading video.

 

[SnakeTongue]

being queer is not a choice; it is not an illness; it is just the way we are.

How do you know that it's just the way someone is born and not a choice?

science has proved that conclusively in the last 30 years.

No, science did not produced in the last 30 year any conclusive evidence which support your claim.

If I am wrong, feel free to provide some evidence.

 

[SnakeTongue]

No, he said your posts contain "moronic irrational homophobic bigot drivel".

He was addressing your posts. It was not an ad-hominem.

I think that any who do will be in a distinct minority of their profession.

Can you address any subject related to the thread or you will help other users to divert the subject?

Your whole post is completely off-topic.

 

[Thunder]

How do you know that it's just the way someone is born and not a choice?

there is ZERO scientific evidence or research confirming the idea that being gay is a choice.

if there is, please present it.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Just be sure to get information from several sources, and not just one website with a clear agenda.

That is what I am doing right now.

Could you paraphrase his ideas, namely, why he considers homosexuality a pathology? I really don't like watching youtube videos to get information; it's simply too easy to make a misleading video.

I will read more about him to answer your question.

 

[Shrike]

How do you know that it's just the way someone is born and not a choice?

Because, as I said before, nearly all the gay men I know have said that at one point (or more points) in there life they have wished they weren't gay.
And that's over here in liberal Holland. Why would you choose to be gay in a country where it could get you killed in many unpleasant ways?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Isn't the idea that homosexuality is a choice kind of paradoxical anyways?

I mean, if someone wanted to be sexually attracted to the same sex, then they must have liked that gender more - which means they were homosexual to begin with. And if they didn't want to be sexually attracted to their own sex, then they certainly didn't make a choice.

So what kind of people, exactly, would make this choice, and more importantly, on what basis?

 

[SnakeTongue]

there is ZERO scientific evidence or research confirming the idea that being gay is a choice.

if there is, please present it.

So... How do you know that someone is born in that way?