Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Sarky · 08-10-2012 12:58pm

The last wedding I was at turned a profit. I have some very shrewd friends.

Bannasidhe · 08-10-2012 1:05pm

Sarky wrote: »

The last wedding I was at turned a profit. I have some very shrewd friends.

I'm still trying to convince my father that as he never had to pay for a wedding for me he should slip me a few grand by way of compensation.

NuMarvel · 08-10-2012 1:08pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 30 year old nephew is marrying his 27 year old fiancee next month. His mother is paying for the whole shebang including honeymoon (idiot!) even though she is in dire mortgage arrears herself. Yet, the happy couple were able to afford to fly off for stag/hen weekends and up until the bride learned she is about to be made redundant at the end of this month they were planning a month long 2nd honeymoon in Thailand in the new year. The mind boggles!!!

They have saved some money as I have agreed to be the photographer for the day but when asked to arrive at 9 a.m. for a 2 p.m. ceremony so I could photograph the bride getting her hair done I must admit I employed some Anglo-Saxon vernacular rarely heard since the 16th century.

The attitude of this couple has me gobsmacked - the Bride has gone all bridezilla and must have x + y +z as it's her special day and he goes along with all of this as 'sure, it's what she wants like...' - that's grand but pay for it yourself in that case ye freeloading miscreants!!! :mad:

Tsk, tsk. You should be advocating a traditional wedding.

Where her family pays, and his (i.e. your) family gets a variety of livestock, preferably porcine or bovine.

ButtimersLaw · 09-10-2012 12:07pm

philologos wrote: »

I'm happy to walk through any passage in the Bible with you if you provide chapter and verse. You might want to OK it with Dades and robindch. But if you're willing to listen to what I say and show the same respect as I'll show you. That's fine by me.

It's the last word in respect to how I should live as a Christian. It's the model I aspire to in any conversation with others. If for one reason or another I can't treat you with the gentleness and respect you deserve (1 Peter 3:15 - 16). I'll stop.

You seem to misunderstand my point which i will repeat once more; Quoting the Bible is not an argument.

it may well be that you choose to believe the bible and use it as a guide as to how to live your life.

This forum is for debate and discussion, and you'll be aware that there are others here who do not share your beliefs, as you do not share theirs.

I have no wish to debate the bible with you, as it's not relevant to the topic under discussion. If you wish to quote the bible at me, then i am free to quote it back to show it for the contradictions contained therein. You can choose to ignore those if they make you uncomfortable, and choose only to discuss those bits you are happier with, or choose whatever you want.

However, to merely quote the bible here is to confuse your dogma for argument. I am not confused by that at all, although you seem to think we should all suspend argument and simply agree with your interpretation of the bible.

As a matter of interest, out of 100, how likely do you think it is that the posters here will agree with you on that?

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 2:37pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

You can but may as well ask the wall. It's been asked and like many questions he's uncomfortable with the logical conclusion that follows his initial secular looking stance he tries to hide it by claiming its a silly or stupid question without any reason.

The only relevance such a question has, is to set you up to attack the poster, not the position and is thus irrelevant. I understand that some of you don't like to deal with points made, but rather go after the man as it were.

And btw, my 'secular looking stance', is merely because I'm talking to people who do not know God. Its actually the issue. I'm hardly going to appeal to a Godly based reasoning am I? You'd swear I was hiding the fact. The issue I have is that the alleged secular decision, seems to be inconsistent and marred in political ideology.

So again, you are free to pretend I hold whatever position you wish, and assume hypocrisy and whatever else you want based on that pretence, as I wont be indulging your irrelevant question.

09-10-2012 2:43pm

JimiTime wrote: »

The only relevance such a question has, is to set you up to attack the poster, not the position and is thus irrelevant. I understand that some of you don't like to deal with points made, but rather go after the man as it were.

How is asking a question grounds to attack? I would have thought this obvious, but the answer is what leaves you open to having to defend your more ludicrous positions.

And of course, once again, you utterly fail to identify what part of the question is irrelevant, or how it is irrelevant, or what your problem with the question is.

keane2097 · 09-10-2012 2:51pm

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue I have is that the alleged secular decision, seems to be inconsistent and marred in political ideology.

Fairly ironic considering everyone knows this is exactly the charge that would be levelled at your own position if you weren't refusing to answer a couple of fairly straightforward questions.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 2:55pm

robindch wrote: »

A bit like quite a few recent posts in this thread, I'm wondering if I should start this one "I'm not sure if you had time to read the previous post(s), but...". But I won't. Which of the substantial claims I made lacked substance? Here they are again for the sake of convenience:

I pointed out that he appears to have no formal qualification in the area in which he's operating; that it's frankly dishonest to label yourself as "Dr" and "PhD" when discussing a topic in which you've no formal qualification (people might be understandably mislead into thinking that the PhD does refer to the topic at hand); that his figures on RCC pedophilia are flat-out wrong, even according to what the RCC itself says (around 66% of the victims were young boys, not 99% as he claims); that he appears to be linked to NARTH, an organization which is known to be virulently homophobic (implying that Whitehead and his conclusions are driven by ideology, and not by fact); that NARTH supports the discredited techniques of psychoanalysis (really); that his book-length screed is peppered with an unending stream of elementary howlers including spelling, grammar and stylistic errors not to mention a collection of errors of fact which are so pervasive that they cannot be unintentional. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Do all of these together really constitute "nothing of substance"?

I'm afraid they do Robin. Nothing above actually deals with the points he raised. Of course, if you are suspicious about the guy, then approach with caution, your points are valid in that context. What they don't do however, is in any way deal with his points. Not trying to be a boll0x about it, but none of this deals with the points raised. They are more a distraction from them. He is not part of NARTH as far as I can see (I don't know a hell of a lot about them), but rather NARTH have called upon him as a research scientist who's conclusions aide their agenda. I don't deny btw, that he's driven by ideology and one can only hope that such people are honest, but you do have to have your wits about you. I think people who get into this subject, from either side, come at it with the hope of seeing certain conclusions. It doesn't make it easy thats for sure, but both sides likely want to spin the science, studies etc in their favour. This leaves things in our hands. To look at the claims and try to discover where the facts are. So again, looking at the points he makes, and asking if he has a point or not is what is required IMO.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 2:58pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Fairly ironic considering everyone knows this is exactly the charge that would be levelled at your own position if you weren't refusing to answer a couple of fairly straightforward questions.

I do have an ideology. I don't hide it. You are saying it like thats news. Its just irrelevant in the context of the topic.

Also, you have no idea of my position on the question, so you don't know what charge would be levelled at it.

Nodin · 09-10-2012 3:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm afraid they do(..........)at the claims and try to discover where the facts are. So again, looking at the points he makes, and asking if he has a point or not is what is required IMO.

Welcome back Jimi. Would care to answer the questions raised by a number of posters?

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

keane2097 · 09-10-2012 3:01pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I do have an ideology. I don't hide it. You are saying it like thats news. Its just irrelevant in the context of the topic.

You could scarcely be more disingenuous.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, you have no idea of my position on the question, so you don't know what charge would be levelled at it.

Of course I do, you couldn't be any more transparent.

Sycopat · 09-10-2012 3:27pm

JimiTime wrote: »

What they don't do however, is in any way deal with his points.

Pointing out that someone is:

a) Not well qualified to interpret the data.

AND, far, far more importantly:

b) Using incorrect and possibly falsified data.

Does not discredit their conclusion?

old hippy · 09-10-2012 4:45pm

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 4:53pm

keane2097 wrote: »

You could scarcely be more disingenuous.

Of course I do, you couldn't be any more transparent.

No problem. So go with your assumptions, and decide to either discuss the topic or not. Siimples.

old hippy · 09-10-2012 4:54pm

JimiTime wrote: »

No problem. So go with your assumptions, and decide to either discuss the topic or not. Siimples.

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

Discuss.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 4:55pm

Sycopat wrote: »

Pointing out that someone is:

a) Not well qualified to interpret the data.

AND, far, far more importantly:

b) Using incorrect and possibly falsified data.

Does not discredit their conclusion?

You can keep going down this rabbit hole, but at the end of the day, he raised points which have not been discredited here. As I keep saying, if you want to point out the issue with them, feel free.

old hippy · 09-10-2012 4:56pm

JimiTime wrote: »

You can keep going down this rabbit hole, but at the end of the day, he raised points which have not been discredited here. As I keep saying, if you want to point out the issue with them, feel free.

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

Discuss.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 5:09pm

old hippy wrote: »

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

Discuss.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

keane2097 · 09-10-2012 5:24pm

keane2097 wrote: »

You could scarcely be more disingenuous.

Of course I do, you couldn't be any more transparent.

JimiTime wrote: »

No problem. So go with your assumptions, and decide to either discuss the topic or not. Siimples.

JimiTime wrote: »

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

Well, think it turned out I was right.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 5:25pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Well, think it turned out I was right.

Great. So now you see how irrelevant it was I'm sure.

Bannasidhe · 09-10-2012 5:28pm

JimiTime wrote: »

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

So - given that you are arguing that people who want to be 'cured' of their homosexuality should have access to certain therapies do you therefore think homosexuality is a 'disease or disorder' as that is the implication here?

NuMarvel · 09-10-2012 5:29pm

JimiTime wrote: »

You can keep going down this rabbit hole, but at the end of the day, he raised points which have not been discredited here. As I keep saying, if you want to point out the issue with them, feel free.

For a man that holds no stock with scientific studies and papers, you're very insistent that this man of science is right.

Anyways, the man in question has been shown not to be a credible source. I see no reason why anyone should waste their time reading something about a matter as serious as this by someone who has no relevant qualifications and who has a particular and very obvious bias on the topic.

If you have additional information that shows the man to be more knowledgeable and impartial than what we've seen so far, then please share it. Otherwise, there's no point in continually asking others to read his papers if you can't provide any reason why he should be taken seriously.

david75 · 09-10-2012 5:34pm

I never understood how the bibles message was love and fogginess yet the crazy Leviticus part(and it is crazy let's be honest) was against the idea of homosexuality and that's the part the church follow. The same chapter says slavery and bearing your wife is allowed.

How is this Christian behavior?

pH · 09-10-2012 5:40pm

david75 wrote: »

I never understood how the bibles message was love and fogginess yet the crazy Leviticus part(and it is crazy let's be honest) was against the idea of homosexuality and that's the part the church follow. The same chapter says slavery and bearing your wife is allowed.

How is this Christian behavior?

You've also got to remember that many years after Christ's death a guy who fell off a donkey wrote a few letters that had a passing reference to how bad the gay was. Its this PLUS crazy Leviticus that gives Christians their biblical justification for their bigotry.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 6:22pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

For a man that holds no stock with scientific studies and papers, you're very insistent that this man of science is right.

Actually, thats not the case at all. I haven't insisted that he's right. I've given his objections which seemed to be credible on face value, someone said he wasn't credible but ignored his points. I said his points may be completely stupid, but attacking him does nothing to show how his points are wrong and to feel free to deal with the issues raised. Thats about it.

As for me not putting much stock in scientific studies and papers. Thats not true actually. Science comes in many forms and fields. Things like social science for example, shares the name science, but is a very blunt instrument. Unlike many people, I don't just see word 'Science' and think, 'well that settles that'.

Corkfeen · 09-10-2012 6:41pm

JimiTime wrote: »

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

But homosexuality is not considered to be a disease or disorder...... Therefore does not need to be cured, this is going by your own logic. :pac: Jimi, just because your religious beliefs want it to be categorised as such, doesn't make it so.

Nodin · 09-10-2012 6:43pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Great. So now you see how irrelevant it was I'm sure.

No, it does rather show how my earlier comments were entirely justified though.

King Mob · 09-10-2012 6:54pm

JimiTime wrote: »

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

So why then do you advocate the curing of homosexual and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

mewso · 09-10-2012 7:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

So why then do you advocate the curing of homosexual and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

Should only take another 5 or so asks before we get an answer. So:-

Jimi why then do you advocate the curing of homosexual and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

Anyone else care to help out here?

King Mob · 09-10-2012 7:18pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm afraid they do Robin. Nothing above actually deals with the points he raised.

His first point is that he believes that gay cures are not given the same leeway or lax standards that addiction treatments are.
What does he use to support this? He doesn't, he only states it as his own judgement.
However as robin points out he has absolutely no qualifications or authority to make such a judgement and have it be taken any more seriously than my opinion.
Would you accept my word for it if I just declared the exact opposite of this guy?
Further, by pointing out that he belongs to a biased organisation, it shows that his uninformed, uneducated and unsupported opinion cannot even be trusted on his word alone if you were so inclined to believe him solely on that.

And then to tackle his point more directly, it's a silly childish dishonest one.
Even if we accept his premise that gay cure programs are treated with more scrutiny that addiction treatments, and ignore the fact there are many people calling for reforms on addiction treatments for various reasons, so what? It's a Tu quoque argument. If anything it's an argument we should be stricter judging the the effectiveness in addiction treatments.
The fact remains that no gay cures have been ever once shown to be safe or effective.

And what makes gay cures different to other treatments (aside from claiming to cure something that isn't a disease) is that they are used to justify and reinforce bigotry.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 7:51pm

Its an unfortunate part of controversial topics like these. The witch hunt distracts from the topic. I hope you all now realise the irrelevance of the question you were all asking. Most of you, even before this topic, classed me as a (Rampant)homophobic bigot. So even if I was to say, we should shoot all homosexuals, it wouldn't actually make a difference. You are engaging with me, while believing me to be a homophobic bigot etc. So in your heads, you've established that as fact. I accept thats what you think, so why don't yee move on, and either engage with the homphobe with relevance, or don't engage with the bigot. Its like you all KNOW that I'm a witch, but you still want to dunk me.

old hippy · 09-10-2012 8:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Great. So now you see how irrelevant it was I'm sure.

Nah, it's fumbling and obfuscation on your part.

Can you cure yourself on the prejudices you harbour?

Corkfeen · 09-10-2012 8:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Its an unfortunate part of controversial topics like these. The witch hunt distracts from the topic. I hope you all now realise the irrelevance of the question you were all asking. Most of you, even before this topic, classed me as a (Rampant)homophobic bigot. So even if I was to say, we should shoot all homosexuals, it wouldn't actually make a difference. You are engaging with me, while believing me to be a homophobic bigot etc. So in your heads, you've established that as fact. I accept thats what you think, so why don't yee move on, and either engage with the homphobe with relevance, or don't engage with the bigot. Its like you all KNOW that I'm a witch, but you still want to dunk me.

King Mob addressed the article but you chose to ignore this and you basically ignored Dades response. You keep making your stance out to be rational but ignore criticisms of the viewpoint which you hold. It isn't a witch hunt, you make baseless and ridiculous assertions while posting extremely biased articles. When we address the articles, you cry wolf and say that we're ignoring these perfectly legitimate claims which they tend not to be.

For example, can you produce a legitimate source that backs up your implied claim that homosexuality is a disorder or disease?

Sierra 117 · 09-10-2012 8:02pm

The only rigorous survey to test the effectiveness of sexual-reorientation therapy would be a longitudinal comparison of groups that received “treatment” versus “no treatment.” But since clients usually present with many co-morbid problems, particularly suicidality, mood disorders and substance abuse, the “no treatment” option would not be ethical. This means, therefore, that a rigorous test of reorientation therapy would be impossible.

Why does the "no-treatment" group have to be composed of people struggling with their sexuality? It could easily be composed of gay people who are comfortable with their sexuality.

And why does he feel qualified to say that it's the only method to test effectiveness when he isn't actually qualified to do so?

robindch · 09-10-2012 8:28pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course, if you are suspicious about the guy, then approach with caution, your points are valid in that context. What they don't do however, is in any way deal with his points.

I'm not sure if you had time to read the previous post(s), but here are some of my problems with Mr Whitehead:

1. He tells lies. Therefore he is a liar. Therefore it's a bit silly to trust him or what he says.
2. He is driven by ideology, not by facts. See (1)
3. His writings are used by a frightful lot of silly boys and girls ("NARTH") to support their point of view, but he seems to be ok with this. See (2) and (1).
4. That horrible outfit uses "psychoanalysis". Nobody uses that stuff any more in "science". If that makes no sense, then take the word "psychoanalysis" and remove the first six letters and the last four letters. There you go! That's what it's all about! See (1).
5. His finished university (school for big boys and girls) a long time ago, but he never studied the thing he's talking about and seems to know nothing about it. See (1)

Please try to read these five points carefully. I've written them as carefully as I can; I've avoided long words and also, I'm typing as slowly as I can.

King Mob · 09-10-2012 9:32pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I accept thats what you think, so why don't yee move on, and either engage with the homphobe with relevance, or don't engage with the bigot. Its like you all KNOW that I'm a witch, but you still want to dunk me.

we only call you that because that's what you demonstrate yourself to be with what you type, then with your dishonest, hypocritical behaviour.
You are forced to ignore simple direct questions because they show you points to be invalid. You cry about people "not addressing the points" then when we do, you ignore them.
We continue to debate you because you demonstrate how indefensible, dishonest and sad positions like yours are.

So again:
So why then do you advocate the curing of homosexual and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

And please address the points in my previous post, or at the very least acknowledge the fact you are ignoring them.

09-10-2012 9:39pm

mewso wrote: »

Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)[/I]

Anyone else care to help out here?

What mewso said. I'm pretty sure I'm one of the numerous users on ignore for asking questions Jimi doesn't like. Can someone ask him this? Or rather a couple of people, he doesn't like answering the first few to ask it. The whole area of disussion is kind of pointless until he answers it

ShooterSF · 10-10-2012 1:35am

JimiTime wrote: »

Its an unfortunate part of controversial topics like these. The witch hunt distracts from the topic. I hope you all now realise the irrelevance of the question you were all asking. Most of you, even before this topic, classed me as a (Rampant)homophobic bigot. So even if I was to say, we should shoot all homosexuals, it wouldn't actually make a difference. You are engaging with me, while believing me to be a homophobic bigot etc. So in your heads, you've established that as fact. I accept thats what you think, so why don't yee move on, and either engage with the homphobe with relevance, or don't engage with the bigot. Its like you all KNOW that I'm a witch, but you still want to dunk me.

And yet we have engaged with relevance but it was always obvious that our starting points conflicted. What we see here is a minor looking for a sexuality change, not a cure because no sexuality is right. Said change is widely believed to be impossible at this time by researchers in these fields and that the therapies on offer come with a risk of damaging the mental health of the minor.
You however, with tooth pulling efforts needed, show that you feel homosexuality is a state of wrong being and if someone can be made straight they have been cured. The acceptable level of risk you see and we see will be different because you see potential cure we see potential orientation change (either way is no different)

To try and give you an idea of the difference imagine the situation where someone claimed they could make asexual people homosexual and they were treating asexual minors who wanted the change but the treatments didn't seem to work nor could they even explain how the methods should work and research showed the asexual kids became a higher suicide risk after the treatment. Would you not think intervening here might be best to protect minors?

Also can you not see the irony in claiming those that outlawed it have a political agenda while refusing to admit your religious one?

old hippy · 10-10-2012 7:06am

Good morning all. Could I ask jim this; why do you advocate the curing of homosexual and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

Ta muchly.

IT-Guy · 10-10-2012 2:04pm

<Dr. Nick> Hey everybody! </Dr. Nick>

Would love for JimiTime (cool tune btw

) to answer the following questions:

1) Why do you advocate the curing of homosexuality and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

2) Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

J0hnick · 10-10-2012 11:39pm

Did anyone watch Beyond Belief last night ?, I just finished watching it, was actually really good, Colm O'Gorman kicked some ass

.

Unfortunately his opponents kept bringing up the same old tired crap that the best environment to raise a child is with a man and a women, with their natural parents, and that gay couples cant produce kids. His rebuttal was exactly what you would expect, stating that if that was the case then why do we extend the same rights to infertile couples or couples that simply don't want to have kids, or couples who want to adopt. Yet, they continued with their mantra of "gay couples cant produce kids"

.

PS: Why does the RTE Player tell you when you click on this particular episode that its meant for a mature audience and asks if you want to continue, and not the previous episodes ? :rolleyes:

old hippy · 11-10-2012 11:31am

More homophobia from religious types

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19881905

That's the Ukraine off the must visit list, so.

The capacity for hatred in the human heart never ceases to amaze me. Closer to home, you only have to look at the (now locked) gay pride thread from yesterday. The usual supects crawling out from under the dung heap to spread their bile and infantile point scoring.

keane2097 · 11-10-2012 11:37am

old hippy wrote: »

More homophobia from religious types

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19881905

That's the Ukraine off the must visit list, so.

The capacity for hatred in the human heart never ceases to amaze me. Closer to home, you only have to look at the (now locked) gay pride thread from yesterday. The usual supects crawling out from under the dung heap to spread their bile and infantile point scoring.

This will be a problem for them in any attempts to join the EU I'd imagine.

old hippy · 11-10-2012 11:57am

keane2097 wrote: »

This will be a problem for them in any attempts to join the EU I'd imagine.

I once met a Ukraine girl who'd joined the Israeli army and didn't much care for Arabs. Or black people. She asked if I was gay or Jewish or Chinese

She said black people and Arabs should "stay out of Ukraine". I asked her why she came to live in London & without batting an eyelid, she told me she loved the "mix of different people here" :rolleyes:

I'd just like to add, I'm damn sure not all people from the country are similar eejits - it's a pity we're only seeing the negative side at the moment.

JimiTime · 11-10-2012 2:15pm

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure if you had time to read the previous post(s), but here are some of my problems with Mr Whitehead:

1. He tells lies. Therefore he is a liar. Therefore it's a bit silly to trust him or what he says.
2. He is driven by ideology, not by facts. See (1)
3. His writings are used by a frightful lot of silly boys and girls ("NARTH") to support their point of view, but he seems to be ok with this. See (2) and (1).
4. That horrible outfit uses "psychoanalysis". Nobody uses that stuff any more in "science". If that makes no sense, then take the word "psychoanalysis" and remove the first six letters and the last four letters. There you go! That's what it's all about! See (1).
5. His finished university (school for big boys and girls) a long time ago, but he never studied the thing he's talking about and seems to know nothing about it. See (1)

Please try to read these five points carefully. I've written them as carefully as I can; I've avoided long words and also, I'm typing as slowly as I can.

I could say some of those things about a lot of posters, and they'd probably say them about me and others, they still look at the points though. Fair enough if you don't want to look at his points, but you have in no way dealt with them.

Please try to read these five points carefully. I've written them as carefully as I can; I've avoided long words and also, I'm typing as slowly as I can.

Passing your confusion off as my failure to read only exemplifies your confusion more. I know the points you made, I just ask have you anything of substance to deal with the points made thats all. You don't, or don't intend to, thats fair enough. I'm not demanding anything, I'm not even defending the guy in question, or questioning your alaysis of the man, as I don't see it as relevant. All the reading up you done on the guy could have been used to look at the points he made and discredit them. So, while I see what you think of the guy and his credibility, I'm just pointing out that you haven't dealt with anything.

JimiTime · 11-10-2012 2:16pm

IT-Guy wrote: »

<Dr. Nick> Hey everybody! </Dr. Nick>

Would love for JimiTime (cool tune btw ) to answer the following questions:

1) Why do you advocate the curing of homosexuality and it's offering to minors when it isn't a disease or disorder any more than heterosexuality?

I advocate a person to be able to choose if they wish to change from their sexual desires. Be it a same sex attraction, attraction to pre pubescent children, attraction to animals, attraction to objects or whatever. If heterosexuality had the physiological and sociological issues that these other desires had, then I'd advocate people choosing to change from that also.

2) Do you think that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (If so, please point to a single professional organisation that backs that up.)

I don't know what the term to use would be, but what is certain, is that people who have attractions that they believe contradict their physiology, should be entitled to choose to change. Most are happy to embrace it, and good luck to them, but for those who don't, they should be allowed try change, and professionals should not be coerced into not offering the help they believe they can. At the end of the day, their sexual desire renders them infertile in terms of the sex of the partner they desire. That alone should legitimise their desire to change if they so wish.

As for 'professional', what constitutes professional? There are many professional organisations who advocate reparation therapy (Which btw, I'm probably more dubious about than all of yee, due to me not really respecting the profession as a whole. My issue is the politics wrapped in 'science', when really its just politics)

The APA is what everyone seems to quote in relation to declassification. What was the new evidence that made 35% of its membership change its mind on homosexuality in 1973? Out of the 10,000 that voted, 4,000 voted not to change its classification, so whatever it was, it didn't seem conclusive. Maybe someone could enlighten us about the process? I know that after the Stonewall riots of 1969 there was a real political pressure movement that pushed for homosexuality to be removed from the disorder classification. So I'd like to see the scientific reasons that caused, from my understanding, 6000 out of 10000 members of the APA to vote for its re-classification. This process also seems more like a political process than a scientific one. As I've already alluded to though, unbiased sources of either side are hard to come by, so if anyone has any idea's, I'm open to correction about the details. If anyone has any idea about the new evidence that caused this change in 1973 too, that would be great, as I can't find it on google.

JimiTime · 11-10-2012 2:26pm

King Mob wrote: »

we only call you that because that's what you demonstrate yourself to be with what you type, then with your dishonest, hypocritical behaviour..

And you are free to believe that. What I'm saying, is you've already concluded that, yet you still engage. So engage in the content, rather than going after the man, as you've already established in yourself that the man is a rampant, homophobic, bigoted, lying hypocrite. I don't mind you believing this (Oh no, theres a load of people on the internet who think I'm whatever... ) I'm just saying, thats not an excuse for you to continue to present nothing of any worth.

Sarky · 11-10-2012 2:29pm

It's not a question of belief. It's what you do. If you want to stop people seeing you and labelling you as "a rampant, homophobic, bigoted, lying hypocrite", well it might be worth your while cutting down on the rampant homophobia, bigotry, lying and hypocrisy. You might just have to accept that the reason all this hubbub is occurring is because you are the problem.

ButtimersLaw · 11-10-2012 2:32pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know what the term to use would be, but what is certain, is that people who have attractions that they believe contradict their physiology, should be entitled to choose to change. Most are happy to embrace it, and good luck to them, but for those who don't, they should be allowed try change, and professionals should not be coerced into not offering the help they believe they can..

the problem with your analysis is that it advocates choice for everyone. Most people think choice is a good idea except when they disagree with the choice made by another.

You either agree that others are allowed to make choices which include choices we might not make ourselves, or you don't agree with the individual right to choose.

For example, I don't necessarily agree that every muslim woman who "chooses" to wear the veil does so as the result of free choice, but at the same time I don't think it's up to me to intervene. I think some gay individuals may have issues sometimes caused by the disgusting teachings of many churches that to be gay is to be, somehow, inferior, but again I don't think that's a good reason to prevent them from seeking whatever help or advice they may choose regarding their sexual desires.

For many years the gay movement quite rightly demanded tolerance from society, and it is reprehensible to see some elements from within the gay movement being intolerant to others who make different choices.

Delirium · 11-10-2012 2:41pm

Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice. If it was then people could change their sexual preference whenever the mood takes them.

Mental health professionals have a code of conduct to adhere to. Attempting to use unproven, banned and potentially harmful treatments on patients would be grounds for malpractice at the very least.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments