You haven't explained how two consenting adults loving and/or marrying each other places my safety or life in jeopardy.

You keep insisting that gays should hold themselves to a nearly impossible standard that straights should not, but do not provide any reason why they should do so other than that you think they should. 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

Relevant: http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthread.php?t=102848 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

You have explained ad nauseum that those with a gender-identity/sexual disorder are not truly disordered because you don't want to believe they are. In any case, you haven't explained why said persons are under no obligation to behave in a manner that does not victimize others.

You keep insisting that those who've bought into the fad of calling themselves and acting 'gay' should be held to no standard, certainly not social propriety, and using as your primary reason the notion that you don't think they should have to. 

ad nauseAm.


Being gay or lesbian is neither an indentity disorder nor a sexual disorder.


Who are you that you think your ideas about proper or not defines social propriety?

People should keep out (not only with their eyes and nose but also with their irrelevant judgement) of the bedrooms of grown up people. Those that have strong emotional reactions to gay or lesbian at any given opportunity (and the thread opening post has nothing to do with gay or lesbian) just show their own problems, with whatever.

LOL. Nope I am not gay nor lesbian. I just do not have a problem with their sexual preference because it is none of my business in no way shape or form.

On the contrary I want nothing to do with people who condemn others (for whatever made up reasons or believe or prejudice) with such hate and visciousness. That I consider sick and dangerous and antisocial. 

Highflyer, I'm trying to keep this a civil discussion -- can you tone the rhetoric down a bit please? Thanks. 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

How am I victimized by two guys having sex?

Do two unmarried straights vicitimize me? (Maybe with kids I pay taxes to support?) 

sandy,

How do two pedophiles who live down the block victimize you? How about two rapists in your apartment building? How about two young adults who go to school with your son, remain purposely untreated for their bipolar disorder because they love their mania and, in ten years, are in the Five and Dime when he walks in. In a manic outburst, one of these ill persons shoots and kills everyone present for no particular reason.

We're talking about persons who flout social convention. It's not just a game of who personally hurts whom, but it could be. 

Ah, the man with a dictionary on his desktop.

I remember the era when children could play outdoors without fear, when the mentally-ill resided in institutions and received medical care. When the news and tv did not bombard us with images of male couples having 'love' relationships, and commentaries designed to desensitize the public to such images. I've lived that long.

Your opinion is that those who choose same-sex relationships do not victimize others. Mine is the opposite. 

You have explained ad nauseum that those with a gender-identity/sexual disorder are not truly disordered because you don't want to believe they are.

No, I've said I don't consider them disordered because there is no reasonable evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, any more than left-handedness is.

In any case, you haven't explained why said persons are under no obligation to behave in a manner that does not victimize others.

Homosexual adults don't victimize others.

You keep insisting that those who've bought into the fad of calling themselves and acting 'gay' should be held to no standard, certainly not social propriety, and using as your primary reason the notion that you don't think they should have to.

That's not true.

I have said they should be held to the *same* standards as heterosexual couples. You are the one who is demanding a different standard, yet you cannot give a reason why this should be, other than your obvious prejudices (which are really your problem, not theirs.) 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

How do two pedophiles who live down the block victimize you?

Pedophilia is a crime because children cannot give consent. Irrelevant.

How about two rapists in your apartment building?

Rape is a crime because of a lack of consent. Irrelevant.

How about two young adults who go to school with your son, remain purposely untreated for their bipolar disorder because they love their mania and, in ten years, are in the Five and Dime when he walks in. In a manic outburst, one of these ill persons shoots and kills everyone present for no particular reason.

Murder. Crime. Irrelevant.

Is that the best you've got? If so, you are proving yourself that homosexual adults do not victimize anyone. Because homosexual adults are not rapists, pedophiles or murderers.

We're talking about persons who flout social convention. It's not just a game of who personally hurts whom, but it could be.

You *do* realize that the *exact* same sort of reasoning could be used to persecute *you*? 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

Untrue.

Both of these statements are easily refuted by a quick search of widely-available information online. Check it out. 

Both of these statements are easily refuted by a quick search of widely-available information online. Check it out.

Uh huh.

If it's so easy, then why don't you provide that information, rather than repeating obviously ludicrous comparisons to murderers?

And I meant that *in general* homosexual adults don't victimize others. There are bad apples there, just as there are among heterosexuals. 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

Well, that's the biggest generalization I've seen thus far in this thread. And the crimes committed by those whose sexual disorders go untreated are apparently 'irrelevant', in any case. Interesting.  

I clarified that in the post just above.

You're avoiding the core issue here. 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

Do your own research, aleph. I remember once, realizing that a change in understanding isn't just about finding facts.

If a culture appeases those who flout its requirements, then who's to say that isn't harm enough? I'm still thinking about those who want to fling off their clothes in the parking lots and malls but chose not to. I'm thinking about people who 'feel like' driving their cars into the crowds that block their way but decide otherwise.

Self-control is everything. 

We must have cross-posted. And where is chat when you need it?? 

Do your own research, aleph.

I have. And what I found was no compelling scientific evidence to support your position.

You're blowing smoke.

If a culture appeases those who flout its requirements, then who's to say that isn't harm enough?

This is a cute bit of circular reasoning, given that those "cultural requirements" are what is being discussed. You can't *define* gays having relationships as being against society and then say they should be criticized for going against society -- it's ridiculous.

Self-control is everything.

Really.

I'm going to ask you two simple questions. If you cannot or will not answer them, I'm going to assume you aren't really interested in discussing this seriously and move on.

#1. What is the difference between your insistence that gays not "flout the requirements of culture", and the exact same argument that was made against blacks and whites marrying 50 to 100 years ago?

#2. If you expect gays to have self-control by not engaging in sex with their partners, are you willing to undertake the same "self-control" for yourself?

a0 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

So it's about social convention, not whether someone doing something that is not in the 90th percentile of behaviors is dangerous?

I don't shave my legs
I don't shave my arm pits
I don't pluck my eyebrows.

Am I hurting you by flounting social convention yet?

/I can try harder  

I smoke. That was a big part of the social convention years ago. Now it isn't. So, am I flouting social convention? Trying to revive social convention? Either way, it is just another example of why 'social convention' is a myth. 

__________________ 
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
— Dom Hélder Camara 

Please do. 

Facts easily corroborated in medical journals and popular articles are not evidence of 'circular reasoning' because you personally find them not 'reasonable'. Sorry.

#1...Although probably neither of us lived in the 1700's-early 1900's, I can say with some certainty that fears of dilution of ethnic purity, foreign religious ideas, and the lack of education and financial potential of freed slaves and black immigrants figured prominently in the argument against blacks and whites marrying. None of these includes that one or the other suffers a recognized physical/mental disorder. The argument is not 'the same'.

#2...You seem to equate men and women in married, monogamous relationships with those who seek out others of the [B]same sex as a compulsive element of a medically-identified sexual disorder. In this context, there is no answer for your question.

Self-control applies to everyone, equally. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state this. 

Alright, I'm done here. 

__________________ 
Interested in a free-wheeling discussion forum, where you can express yourself openly on any topic without worrying about moderators and long lists of rules? Try Freedom Of The.Net -- it's Freedom of the Press, at Net Speed [tm].

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." -- Dante

"If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution." -- Aleph Null 

DSM IV doesn't have homosexuality as a disorder.

Oddly, it has being bisexual as a disorder.

Since you slipped the social convention idea in there, why not just think Greek?

Being monogamous for life isn't even the norm anymore, if it ever was. 

In what context? If two people agree to an action that harms neither of them, in fact, they both get pleasure, where is the lack of control?

I can see saying not to have sex in the street...waiting to get behind closed doors IS self control  

Well, there you go. 

Anyone who reads this thread will be more than able to make up their own minds regarding the merits of the various viewpoints expressed.

Thanks for sharing.  

__________________ 
.
.

Roscoe and Miss Priss 

Sandy,

A twelve year old can 'agree' to sex with a thirty year old. They can both enjoy it. Do you want that, though, for your son or daughter?

To erase homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM as a fad and for politically-correct reasons doesn't in any way make it less of a diagnosable illness.

There exists a percentage of people who don't develop conscience, can't feel remorse for the wrongs they do and, often, don't even recognize the difference between what is right and wrong. That's not an opinion. We're not ancient Greece. My argument against homosexual behavior isn't an indictment of those who suffer same-sex attraction; it's an awareness that those who love the idea of 'being gay', and who victimize others in same-sex relationships, are among those who don't understand right from wrong.

A compulsion caused by mental or physical disorder is not love. Admit it or not, word play of that kind needlessly discourages the treatment of young adults, and research into new and experimental treatments for children in the womb and during infancy. 

There was a time when 13 would have been acceptable and at times, I think that might be better than expecting humans to ignore the biology of reproduction. So, 12 yr olds having sex doesn't seem all that wrong to me in the context of history of our species. 16 was once an 'old maid'.

If you like the 'old ways' of seeing homosexuality as always wrong (which for every society it wasn't seen that way) then sex as young teens at menarch would be what is right based on the old ways. 

OK. But what about your son and daughter? Maybe you draw the line at age 11. Or 10. Where does victimization of others begin when all parties 'agree'?

There is more to 'the old ways' than you probably realize. Girls eating the typically-lean Paleolithic diet, and the far less nutritious grain-based diet for centuries afterwords, didn't reach the age of fertility until 17 years old, 18 or even older. In such a context, sex for fun at any age might make sense. Except when an older, stronger, sexually-disordered and manipulative 'partner' is the one making all the moves. Then we're back to how relationships based on compulsions create victims. 

That's not age...that's when someone is manipulative. The age or orientation doesn't matter. An abusive male to female or male to male makes no difference. Other than they can give consent to be abused. And in this society, now, no one steps in until the abuse is specific types or the person abused asks for help. I don't see where that has anything to do with orientation.

You seem to pick out what fits your image of 'sick' or 'not sick'...which is exactly what everyone else does. You can think sick is any mating of humans without the intent to impregnate. That doesn't mean others having sex using birth control for pleasure is 'sick' to anyone but those who think it is.

When all parties agree, I'm not sure there is any time that = victimization. 

Nope, the women who learned Latin in school, needed that qualification for entering that special field in University and uses nausea occasionally as a terrm in one of her professions.
And who finds it quite telling when people use Latin who have no understanding of it other than from internet discussions.



I am living in an era, area and country where children can play outdoors without fear and where psychiatric illness is treated adeaquately to some extend. And that has not changed over the decades that I remember.

No psychiatrist though would treat homosexuality per se here nor in the US as a mental disease.



Really? Well, then at least stupid TV does some good to educate part of the public that is still capable of learning.




Indeed, they do not do any harm to me, us, or our society. They just practise sex and love in a way that is repulsive to you personally. Your problem, not mine.

Count me in the group that consider homophobia not a mental disease per se but a strong sign for serious pathological psychological issues. 

You are correct. And thus comes civilization out of barbarism. You and I and 99% of the population know sick when we see it. Deny that it is a useful survival strategy all you want. It changes nothing. Those who willingly flout common rules and obligations in a way that victimizes others usually disappear from the gene pool...one way or another. That's how life works...evolution, natural selection, pick your term.



??? So we're down to six years old, maybe four and the baby craves his Daddy's attention so much he'll do anything to love him, and I guess I just don't have a reply for you when you seem to be not actually listening to what you're saying. 

Apparently not. Or at least not your definition of 'sick'. Have you ever considered that some might consider you sick for your viewpoints? And they would have just as much right to their opinions as you do. What is 'sick' or not depends on one's vantage point.

It will take more time for what some currently consider 'sick' to be more fully accepted. We are in the transition phase now, but not all the way there yet. Just like racial acceptance, it wont be stopped. As I said earlier, a few more generations sinking into the sunset of those that still cling to their old prejudices ought to do it.  

__________________ 
.
.

Roscoe and Miss Priss 

Vantage point? lol Try explaining that to a sickle-cell patient, a diabetic or someone unlucky enough to have contracted AIDS at birth. They'd love to have the luxury of that kind of doublespeak, I'd bet.

As far as cultural change, the problem with your scenario of 'acceptance' which I prefer to call appeasement is that race and skin color are not changed by behavior. No one must engage in same-sex relationships; it is a voluntary activity that, more often than not, victimizes children and young adults.

Speaking of the sunsets of civilization, I suppose the ancient Romans might have another perspective...from hindsight. 

Jane, you know very well we have not been talking about people who actually are ill with a specific disease, but rather your opinion that any sexual preference besides heterosexuality is sick or perverted.

After reading this thread I could now easily say you too are sick, but that would be only an opinion too.

Fortunately for both of us people's opinions are not fact.  

__________________ 
.
.

Roscoe and Miss Priss 

I beg to differ. Sorry.



Indeed. When you get your facts straight we might try this again.