Prop 8?

@cicerone imposter,

Not a problem in this world if they do not wish to be treated for a disorder such as homosexuality and wish to form a partnership with another suffer of this disorder however that does not mean that we should allow them to enter a legal relationship that the state license, that in no way is design for them.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill, how can you use such crappy logic, and think that your arguments are persuasive? To anyone?

Homosexuality is neither a medical disorder nor a mental 'condition.' You have no proof that it is either. It causes no harm to the person in question. It makes one no less likely to succeed in life or respond to danger in their surroundings.

I don't even know why I bother to argue with homophobes like you, Hawkeye, and woiyo. You bigots are not interested in facts and have already made your minds up that Gay is Wrong and you'll be damned if you vote to give someone you disagree with equal rights to you, for you see them as lesser beings than you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Deist TKO as a member of my own family had adopted a new born within the last two years here how it go.

You wish to know information if possible about the medical and others facts such as IQ of both biological parents.

A baby born of low IQ drug addicted parents with known medical problems is on the face of it is far less desirable then a child born of high IQ parents with no known medical or drug problems in their family background.

Why would you resent people taking such factors into consideration when they are committing to a task of raising a child to adulthood at great cost in every sense.

In addition, a child that been likely harm in his or her early years of development is less desirable then a newborn baby also on the face of it.

What is to resent or not resent?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No harm?

Well it depend on how you define harm as it does greatly reduce the chance that his or her genes will be pass on to the next genration and that could be define as a great harm not only to the person involve but all his ancestors in his or her family tree.

If he had some rare abiltiy such as in mathematic or art that seem to run in family lines then it is a great harm to the society as a whole.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

No harm?

Well it depend on how you define harm as it does greatly reduce the chance that his or her genes will be pass on to the next genration and that could be define as a great harm not only to the person involve but all his ancestors in his or her family tree.

If he had some rare abiltiy such as in mathematic or art that seem to run in family lines then it is a great harm to the society as a whole.

First, lots of gays and lesbians pass on their genetic material.

Second, this is not harm 'to the person.' You are using a ridiculous definition of 'harm' in order to try and make your point. It is not convincing. An individual owes nothing to his ancestors nor his possible descendants; there is no imperative to have children by the individual.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

BillRM et al now wants to control the gene pool? ROFLMAO

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Hell it is a medical condition or a disorder and as such you do have some control in whether you seek treatment or not for example or if you take part in a subculture to promote this form of a disorder,

Of course the APA had force it membership not to offer any form of treatment, kind of like if the deaf community could force doctors not to offer the new technology that bypass the ears to allow some form of hearing, as if a lack of hearing is not somehow a disorder.

You do know that there are people in the deaf community that would love to have the power that the homosexual community had exercise as they can foresee their deaf sub-culture and way of life ending as deaf children are fitted with this new technology?

The very same kind of arguments could be used after all there are deaf animals in nature so being deaf is a completely natural state of being and surely not a choice.

You've outdone yourself Bill. This is without question your dumbest post to date.

You can paint a goose white, and it still won't be a swan. The point you need to get to is understanding that there isn't a problem with it being a goose, and that the swans aren't affected by it being a goose.

Since you seem to think you'll make traction by attacking the APA with conspiracy theories (you won't), why don't you tell us what therapy could be offered? Please indulge us. I need a good laugh. You haven't even been able to establish that it's a mental disorder.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Not really my friend as you are the one stating how homosexual is somehow natural IE somehow good is your meaning as animals can be found to have this same disorder.

As far as biological facts are concern an animal who never breed is as dead as an animal that die at birth as far as the gene pool is concern.

True some homosexuals one way or another produce children however the condition greatly reduce that likelihood and the more out of the old closest they are the less is the likelihood of children.

As far as harming the individual is concern you are correct other then a far greater chance of STDs in males homosexuals and perhaps a lifestyle in males that tend to be a little more wild in the younger years then straight males being gay is not all that harmful.

Still you can said the same thing for a great many disorders IE not all that harmful.

In any case there is no logic in supporting the state licensing such relationships as if they was licensing a class that produce great numbers of breeding pairs that society intrinsically have an interest in.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Fact the APA was place under great pressure in the early 70’s concerning listing homosexuality as a disorder with behavior similar to the Act Out Group a generation later. Do you happen to question that fact my friend not a theory a fact. Try using the Way Back Machine on their website to see their own statements concerning that period of time on their own website.

Number two the incoming president of the APA at the time that homosexuality was de-listed as a disorder was an in the closet gay gentlemen according to his daughter interview on NPR. A fact my friend.

After the de-listing the membership force a vote that if memory serve me correctly was somewhere in the range of 60/40 in favor of supporting the de-listing. That neither sound like science or sold agreement by experts in the field for the idea that homosexuality is not a disorder.

Now they are running a committee dealing with supporting the gay community, a very odd thing to do for a suppose science base organization in my opinion.

And of course their outright ban on any treatment by members for this condition. Kind of hard to do research on treatments without funding and being kick out of your profession field organization for daring to do so is it not!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

There is not one ounce of fact or logic in this entire screed, Bill. I'm pretty much done wasting my time with a serial Asserter such as yourself.

Suffice it to say that none of the reasons you list have any merit to them whatsoever, and you really are just showing how many different ways you can be bigoted. I bet you wouldn't have the nuts to say these things directly to the face of gay folks.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@BillRM,

So now you're interested in the harm to families you don't even know or care about in any other way? You are an idiot.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am so sorry that I had painted you into a corner in such a manner you feel a need to run away and hide.

Shame on me.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I know there had to be some kind of sense to your posting but I frankly don't see it. What the hell are you talking about my caring for families in some manner but not in others!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I am so sorry that I had painted you into a corner in such a manner you feel a need to run away and hide.

Shame on me.

Attempting to have a reasoned discussion with an irrational child is an exercise in futility. Like the ill-informed brat that you are, you're throwing a tantrum because no one wants to play with you. If you don't want to be relegated to the proverbial corner and ignored, then you must "grow up," become informed, and submit reasonable statements supported by facts and logic.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bill wrote:

Quote:

Not a problem in this world if they do not wish to be treated for a disorder such as homosexuality and wish to form a partnership with another suffer of this disorder however that does not mean that we should allow them to enter a legal relationship that the state license, that in no way is design for them.

It's viewed as a "disorder" to bigots like you.

A baby born of low IQ (drug) addicted parents with known medical problems is on the face of it is far less desirable then a child born of high IQ parents with no known medical or drug problems in their family background.

Not all babies with medical problems are caused by "drugs."

Why would you resent people taking such factors into consideration when they are committing to a task of raising a child to adulthood at great cost in every sense.

That's a choice for the parents to make; not idiots like you.

In addition, a child that been likely harm in his or her early years of development is less desirable then a newborn baby also on the face of it.

"Desirable" for whom? It's not your business or decision to make for others. If I had the choice to decide for others, you would have been eliminated from the human gene pool.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

You gotta love all the calls to "become informed" and "get educated".....since when did education become that same thing as agreeing with the conventional wisdom?? Why are those who are not sure that the sexual deviant homosexuals should be embraced themselves labeled intellectually deviant and determined to be suitable for abuse??

Very interesting dynamic we have going on in this thread., pretty much supports what I have believed for awhile...namely that intellectual freedom is on deaths door.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye, Debra has it right; you really don't know what you're talking about, because you base your "belief" on religious' teachings which has no basis of evidence or proof of the poof man, god.

You not only believe in two thousand year old myths, but have never learned to study the psychology of humans, and why homosexual behavior is "normal." That's the reason why all cultures have homosexuals; it has nothing to do with religious' homophobic bigotry.

You ignorance is directly related to your homophobic bigotry.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Science and reason are myths, if you were aware of that you would not be so quick to dismiss religious myth. However, my objection is not the same as Bill's, my objection is as a socialist. We should not encourage homosexual behaviour until we are reasonable sure that it is not an assault upon the collective. Our Ancestors determined that it was, and it is irresponsible of us to assume that all who have come before us were idiots who were not as smart as we moderns. The collective evaluation of the question by our ancestors is enshrined in religious doctrine, but that fact that religious teachings caution against condoning homosexuality does not indicate that this teaching was or is now wrong. Anything that comes out of religious tradition you are quick to label as quackery, which indicates not that you are hip and modern, but that you are ignorant.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

)
Science and reason are myths, if you were aware of that you would not be so quick to dismiss religious myth.

You don't even know what the word Myth means, let alone Science or Reason.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

hawkeye believes science is myth. ROLFMAO

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know