Prop 8?

So no link? I accept your concession.

T
K
O

Fill me in then. The matter is so simple it won't take longer than a couple of minutes.

You must know all about it. I've only spent four years debating it on three threads on top of my scientific training,

I discovered that if you have the patience to pad it out with repetitive woffle like Darwin did you can get selected in by the professionals and get a job where you meet ladies with a similar bent and get on breeding some little evolutionists who will know all about it as well and so on and so on until the whole world is populated by evolutionists who then have to find some other subject to construct the status hierarchy and some other way to provide the services and social structures they are dependent upon to satisfactorily research ground-breaking methods of woffling.

I also discovered that people who go about asserting that others know nothing, or practically nothing, which is the same really but a touch wimpier, about a matter, without further explanation, should be avoided socially on the grounds that they have chronic ego twitteritis, which is inoperable, and are thus impossible to relate to in any meaningful way.

I presume you have a dog LW.

Gay or not gay you are a complete asshole in my opinion however here is one of the thousands of links concerning the term that anyone even you could had found using google.

Come to think of it you might just be one of tthe examples that homosexuality does cause mental/moral concerns going beyond a simple sexual disorder.

That and the outragous behavior of the gay right movement.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA385&lpg=PA385&dq=sociopathic+personality+disturbance++homosexaulity&source=bl&ots=Ehqe9c7f5y&sig=F35yRn36B01y5U4Xk5-Ys9Ga4ME&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Come to think of it where the hell is the link to the polls that show how the voters in CA had have a change of heart over the issue since the vote?

Is it my understanding, Bill, that you equate homosexuality to be the same as a male who has erectile dysfunction? Or a woman who is born without the ability to produce eggs? Or are you equating it to a bi-polar disorder?

Your link is moot as it mostly covers heterosexual sexual deviations and has no chapter on homosexuality at all. Nice try, but a waste of your time. Your deduction is not only ignorant, but stupid as well.

Outrageous behavior of the gay rights movement to you, but that's the point -- it isn't being considered by those heterosexuals who believe gays should have the right to legally marry.

From Andrews Sullivan's The Daily Dish, today:

08 Jan 2009 01:26 pm
The Truth About Marriage's History

A reader makes some great points:

With Larison's argument against marriage equality, I think you miss the most fundamental flaw. Larison assumes that changes to marriage are made explicitly. But birth control and the destigmatization of out-of-wedlock childbirth have changed the institution of marriage as profoundly as no-fault divorce laws. Throughout the Western world, marriage is no longer invariably associated with procreation. People have children without being married; people are married with no thought or even possibility of having children. My father & stepmother, for example, married when she was menopausal.

Historically, marriage has never been solely about procreation; it was about extending kinship ties and the concomitant financial security of an extended family. That's why in the west, in-laws once played such a significant role in selecting mates and in rearing the Ringjustinsullivangetty children. In the 1700-1800s, when the idea of marriage become associated primarily with the couple, the nuclear family grew in importance, & the industrial revolution changed the role of the extended family in financial security, the nature of marriage changed significantly. Once we stopped being an agrarian society, large families went from being an economic plus to a minus, which is a major reason the push to develop effective birth control became so important.

These bottom-up changes in the definition of marriage far surpass anything proposed by gays seeking equal access to the institution. And that is why the only way to strengthen the older form of marriage so prized by social conservatives would require repealing no-fault divorce laws (not something that likely to happen, insofar as conservative men seem to enjoy their trophy second & third wives as much as liberals do), repealing all opportunities for women to earn wages independently of their husbands, outlawing any corporate policies that allow or encourage people to move away from their parents' homes, etc. Those kinds of explicit social, legal, and economic changes are just not going to happen. So unplanned change is going to continue in how Americans create & maintain their families. Since a certain amount of instability in family arrangements is beyond the control of conservatives, they'd better look for where they can bolster stability. Do committed relationships between adults foster more stable societies or weaken them? Surely the answer is that they foster stable societies, and for that reason, they should be not just accepted but encouraged.

Why do social conservatives not want to encourage stability, responsibility and commitment among gay Americans? What real policy do they have for gay Americans at all?

arrian had mentioned a delicate topic. It's odd how people always speak about such matters impersonally.

I get erectile dysfunction whenever I think of Elton John.

It used to say in the sex instruction manuals that to prevent premature ejeculation ( the hfuhruhurr's) one should play over a difficult 4 spades contract in the mind. It was a whist hand in the tabloids.

But I always went down doubled and redoubled so I took to thinking of Elton John.

Also from The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish:

05 Jan 2009 12:14 pm
The Institution Of Marriage

Larison makes his case against marriage equality:

When endorsing a change, particularly one this radical, a conservative would need to show not only that it does not do harm to the institution in question but also that it actually reinforces and reinvigorates the institution. Whether or not “gay marriage” harms the institution of marriage, it certainly does not strengthen it. It is therefore undesirable because it is unnecessary to the preservation of the relevant institution, and so the appropriate conservative view is to leave well enough alone.

"My Big Fat Straight Wedding" argues the opposite. I think allowing gay couples to marry does strengthen the institution, because it ensures that everyone in a family has access to the same civil rites and rights, and so the heterosexual marriages are as affirmed as effectively as the gay ones. (It is not my experience that the straight siblings and families of gay people feel their marriages affirmed by excluding some of their own.) By removing the incentive for gay people to enter into false straight marriages, which often end in divorce or collapse, wrecked childhoods and betrayed spouses, heterosexual marriage is also strengthened. And the practical alternative to marriage equality - civil unions for straights and gays - presents a marriage-lite option for everyone that clearly does threaten traditional marriage in a way that gay marriage never could.

Serious conservatives understand that these are the three practical options on modern America: including everyone in civil marriage; creating a two-tiered system of civil marriage and then lesser civil unions for straights and gays; or simply resisting any change and using the government and law to perpetuate the stigmatization of homosexuality. If those three are the choices, my view is that the first is easily the most authentically conservative. I suspect that the impact on those states that now allow such inclusion will prove it in due course.

It's one way of thinking you are thinking about the matter.

spendius, i was not trying to dehumanize these topics, only trying to figure out what bill considers a "sexual disorder" to be. Technically there are two types, medical and psychological. However, according to the DSM a sexual disorder is "the impairment in normal sexual functioning." Reading on in the below link you can determine that "normal sexual functioning" is not considered male-female intercourse; rather, it is simply the ability of a human to perform sexually. Thus, if Bill for some reason believes that homosexuality is physical in nature, then it is genetic and unable to be controlled by the individuals. Since the DSM doesn't say that "normal sexual functioning" is restricted to only male-female intercourse, it is safe to say that even if you WERE to argue that it is psychological, you would have no basis to stand on medically; thus, proving your argument moot from lack of empirical evidence.

and the link that I forgot...

http://allpsych.com/disorders/sexual/index.html

Why gays don't go extinct.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

That Google search came up with a plethora of the latest studies and conclusions on being born gay:

http://www.google.com/search?q=genes+causing+homosexuality&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2007-26,GGGL:en

Not to mention that gay men are attracted to male pheromones rather than female pheromones.

So sensitive. What are you so insecure about? I guess you're not feeling so confident these days. For someone that oppresses people, I'm really not bothered by being called an "asshole."

Oh ****! Quarantine the area! The gay virus has gone airborne. People who are straight are advocating for gay rights! This must mean they are turning gay! LOL. You crack my **** up.

Damn outrageous that they'd fight for their rights.

Cool, however irrelevant to what you were supposed to prove.

I pointed out the FACT that homosexuality was listed as a "sociopathic personality disorder."

Then you come back and say that being a "sociopath" is not the same as having a "sociopathic personality disturbance." (some other term than the one used in the paper).

I call you out on it.

You provide a link that doesn't at all establish the separation in terms.

Here's a definitions...

and if you put in "sociopathic personality disorder," you obviously get and entry on antisocial personality disorder, again supporting me...

So you see Billy, the APA was not going to be able to continue to define homosexuals as sociopaths. The public presence and outrage by groups only forced them to abide by their own conscience and their own scientific minds that knew all too well that homosexuals were not sociopaths.

This concludes your lesson for the day.
K
O

But what if Billy likes HIS definitions better?

Thesaurus Rex!
K
O

Could you not use that argument to excuse any behaviour? Was it not the basis of Manson's defence?

Yes, you can use that argument to excuse any behavior that is not supported medically. The original argument that we've been debating in the last few pages of the thread is whether or not the DMS was wrong in removing homosexuality as a mental illness. Thus, if there is no empirical evidence based on studies and medical research, then to assert the claim that it is a "sexual disorder" is plain wrong. Therefore, if there is no medical basis (research, medical studies, etc) that points to homosexuality being either a mental illness or, more specifically a sexual disorder, then there is no reason for it to be listed in the DMS.

Furthermore, if you are saying that homosexuality is a behavior then it is the result of something. All human behavior is genetically linked. We are predisposed to how we will react in given situations. How we are brought up and circumstances about our childhood do cause differences in how we express our genetic makeup; however, ultimately when it comes down to it even our responses to our environment changes based on our genetic code. Thus, if homosexuality is simply a behavior it is safe to say that it is genetic.

And to those of you who believe homosexuality is a choice I pose this question: when did you make your choice? Tell me about that conversation you had with yourself in bed one morning... did you pro/con homo- vs. hetero-sexuality? Did you weigh the benefits of each and then make a rational decision? How did YOU decide that you were going to be heterosexual?

Yes in my opinion it is a medical disorder that reduce the likelihood of a person having children.

O f course normal as in the evolution reason for the sex drive in the first place is heterosexual sex.

The APA for PC reasons do a large number of hoop jumpings but that is that on the face of it.

The word normal is not a moral statement or an emotional one for that matter just an evolution reason for the drive in the first place.

Your mindset and prejudice is, as usual, totally unsupported and typical of the subjective, emotional reaction to anyone who is different from you (what a small, tight-assed world you live in):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html