Your "In the "agape" sense, and the "philia" sense of the word" sounds pretty familiar as well.
Homosexuality selected because of societal function
- Thread starter kmoney
- Start date
Your "In the "agape" sense, and the "philia" sense of the word" sounds pretty familiar as well.
dodge
New member
Folks are telling you the truth YOU are the one that has bought into a lie.
Please address rocketman's post:
Natural? That is a tall order, proving that the human reproductive system is physiologically or biologically designed for homosexuality that is. So, it is your assertion that the "natural" function of the penis is to be inserted into the garbage chute of the human body? That is the "natural" function of the bowels & anus, are we now to say they have other "natural" uses science has not defined? That is absolutely absurd! The "natural" function of the human reproduction system is to reproduce, regardless of the anomalous behavior that is displayed in the animal kingdom or in humankind. Try as you might you cannot make the unnatural act of homosexuality into a natural act, it simply is not possible.
you said: "Pointing to gay animals to justify booty sex between men and boys is sickening."
no one is doing that.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
does that ever work?
calling something hate-speech and attempting to link them to racists
does that ever work, or do you just end up poisoning the well and shutting down the dialogue?
no but if when speaking of a particular minority I use the same language and rhetoric and methods as Hitler, then there might be something to that claim
It's still true.
dodge
New member
You trying to justify and make same sex appear normal or accepted will always be met with disagreement.
Comparing same sex with being born black is apples and oranges not even close.
On the contrary, several on this thread have pointed to nature and gay animals to explain human homos
Just like outlawing slavery overturned centuries of law.
Women's suffrage, desegregation, child labor laws all over turned centuries of laws.
you haven't presented a legal argument all you have done is post a logical fallacy, Specifically, you present an appeal to tradition.
We have been doing X for generations. Therefore, X is always the correct thing to do.
Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way we have always done it”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.
There is so much garbage and misinformation here it's hard to know where to start.
Well maybe it's not that hard. If you are going to make claims about a historic event then educate yourself about that event. A couple good books on the topic: American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History by Jack Dresher and Joseph Merlino
Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis by Ronald Bayer by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM is well recorded by people who were actually there. People like: Robert Spitzer, Melvin Sabshin, Carolyn Robinowitz, Richard Green, Judd Marmor, John Spiegel. Go read their accounts, you might learn something. If you don't know who these people are then you are showing off your complete ignorance on the subject.
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was not the result of bullying but the result of years of research and debate in the APA. It started in 1968 (not 1970) when a large group of APA members protested the fact that on the panel looking at homosexuality only presented the views of one individual. The specifics of the complaint were that the panel painted the entire psychiatric profession as being followers of Charles Socarides. The panelists' response was to issue a challenge to those in disagreement with Socarides to refute his theories. Many did just that.
BTW, this exchange is the one you describe as "The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder."
Following the 1972 APA conference, Dr. Richard Green, wrote a lengthy summary of the issues in the dispute over the classification of homosexuality in the DSM. His article, "Homosexuality as a Mental Illness," published in the International Journal of Psychiatry, charged that there was no existing data to support the claim that homosexuality is a disease or that sexual relations between opposite sex partners are preferable to those between same sex partners. Dr. Green's article included formal invitations for response.
Fourteen of those responses were presented at the APA's Nomenclature Committee met in February of 1973. The conclusions of all were summed up by Dr. Seymour Halleck when he said that there was no scientific evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality was a developmental disorder.
Charles Silverstein presented the work of several resechers not present showing that the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental illness was not only inconsistent with a scientific evidence but that homosexuality does not even meet the definition of a mental disorder.
Silverstein stated "I suppose what we're saying is that you must choose between the undocumented theories that have unjustly harmed a great number of people and continue to harm them and ... controlled scientific studies. It is no sin to have made an error in the past, but surely you will mock the principles of scientific research upon which the diagnostic system is based if you turn your backs on the only objective evidence we have." (Bayer & Sears, pp. 118-121)
The APA's Nomenclature Committee went through an 11-month process by preparing a report recommending the change in DSM-II. This process was open to any APA member and in the course of the 11 months 78 different experts were called on to present evidence and research. The committee specifically invited most vocal opponents of the change, Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present research and evidence. While all three attended meetins they presented no research complaining instead how this was a political move not a scientific one.
At the end of this process the APA's Council on Research and Development unanimously recommended deletion of homosexuality from DSM-II. Next, it was taken to the Assembly of District Branches, where it was again approved. The next step was the APA Reference Committee, composed of the heads of the various APA councils and the president-elect. The Reference Committee endorsed the proposal, leaving the approval of the board of trustees at the December meeting as the final step. (Bayer, pp. 132-138)
Then the APA Board of Trustees again invited , Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present their case a third time on December 10, 1973. Bieber restated the old theories without presenting data to support them. Socarides and McDevitt complained that the change in classification was motivated by politics, not by scientific studies. Socarides and McDevitt were asked once again to present scientific studies supporting their view of homosexuality as a pathology. They could not produce any. Following those presentations, the Board of Trustees met in executive session and voted to approve the removal of homosexuality from DSM-II. (Bayer, pp. 135-138)
Socarides and Bieber poured over the associations by-laws and found a provision designed to provide some democratic control over the association's corporate life, and then forced a petition demanding a referendum of the Association's membership. Yes, the men complaining about how this was all motivated by politics used politics in an attempt to derail science.
Huge numbers of the APA members viewed the vote to be an insult to the scientific process and refused to participate in a farce referendum. (Bayer, pp. 141-144)
The attacks and justifications of hate used against homosexuals is indistinguishable from those used against African Americans. If you don't like that fact then maybe you should be trying to silence those spouting the verbal sewage.
No they have responded to the false claim that something that occurs naturally in nature is somehow not natural.
MrDonky is a lost cause I think. He is beyond knowing right from wrong.
You're a sick twisted liar.
glassjester
Well-known member
glassjester
Well-known member
:thumb:
Anyone who thinks it is either moral or natural for a man to desire to put his penis in another man's anus is a sick twisted individual. Same-sex attraction is a mental disorder. PERIOD. Debate on that point is futile.
glassjester
Well-known member
Undoubtedly!
I believe that is a separate issue.
- Same-sex attraction is a thing of the mind; it is a disordered attraction.
- Abnormal physical acts - using various body parts for purposes they are not intended for - are practiced by many people whether they suffer from the mental disorder of not.
If a man has anal sex with a woman, that is an unnatural act (and a sin religiously speaking) but in his mind he is still attracted to the correct sex so he has no mental disorder in that regard. But with the gay man, the unnatural act is prompted by his mental disorder.
Thank you.
Is lying all you know how to do? Talking about the mental disorder that homosexuals suffer from is not using Hitlerian language.
You have played the race card here and now you have played the Hitler card. You're done. Shut up and let the adults talk.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Quetzal
New member
I agree, but those who are against homosexuality will never see it this way. If they did, they would have to come to terms with the idea that the logic behind each is relatively the same. That would hurt their self-righteous street cred.
Quetzal
New member
The only reason this comes up is many who are against homosexuality love to point to nature in their own arguments. Unknowingly, cornering themselves because other examples of homosexuality exist elsewhere in the very same nature they are using to condemn it.