Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Sycopat

JimiTime wrote: »

Due to anecdotes (Not saying this means its wrong), but there are also anecdotes from the opposite side too.

Your consistent inability or refusal to tell the difference between an anecdote and data lead me to do this.

This is the report, carried out on behalf of the American Psychological Association which found that sexual identity changing treatments don't work and can cause harm.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

I draw your attention specifically to page 86, sub heading Recommendations
and Future Directions, sentence 2, which reads:

(a) an enduring change to an
individual’s sexual orientation as a result of SOCE is
unlikely, and some participants were harmed by the
interventions

This is a conclusion based on review of data and research interpreted by qualified professionals.

Not an anecdote.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

Not entirely. I certainly wouldn't like to see heterosexuals seek to change their sexuality,and would ask on what basis it could be seen that their sexuality is an issue. I believe other sexualities have valid issues linked to them.

Yeah, we gathered that. Nice of you to finally admit it as well.

I see you're at the old classic of mentioning paedophilia in the same breath as homosexuality as well.

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, we gathered that. Nice of you to finally admit it as well.

I see you're at the old classic of mentioning paedophilia in the same breath as homosexuality as well.

WHAT? There's people who do that in 2012? Must read this thread after all.....sorry to those to whom this is a personal issue that I haven't yet- not that ya need my help, but jumping on bigots is a pleasure for me. Gonna make it personal as of now...:cool:

jill_valentine

JimiTime wrote: »

If heterosexuality had the physiological and sociological issues that these other desires had, then I'd advocate people choosing to change from that also.

You could be in for a land here.

Societal pressures aside, the "Try lesbianism!" campaign could have a fairly strong deal on offer for women. Much much lower risk of domestic violence, better sex, lower STD rates, more autonomy, better dispute resolution.... and that's before you get down to the comedy "you can share clothes!" stuff.

JimiTime

old hippy wrote: »

So, basically being gay is a bad thing and people should be encouraged to change, yes?

If a person WANTS to change, I advocate them being allowed to do so without legal impediment, intolerance or abuse. I also advocate a professional being allowed to help them if they so wish, unless it can be shown, that the professional's methods are a cause of real harm.

Nodin

jill_valentine wrote: »

You could be in for a land here.

Societal pressures aside, the "Try lesbianism!" campaign could have a fairly strong deal on offer for women. Much much lower risk of domestic violence, better sex, lower STD rates, more autonomy, better dispute resolution.... and that's before you get down to the comedy "you can share clothes!" stuff.

........the "can share clothes" thing might qualify as a plus and a minus, tbh. Just based on observation, like.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

If a person WANTS to change, I advocate them being allowed to do so without legal impediment, intolerance or abuse. I also advocate a professional being allowed to help them if they so wish, unless it can be shown, that the professional's methods are a cause of real harm.

So then since not a single conversion therapy has ever once been shown to be effective, and every single one that has been tested has been shown to be harmful, your objection to banning them for minors until they can be shown otherwise is... what exactly?

And what if the "want" to change in the first place is in fact caused bigotry like yours that falsely labels homosexuality as deficient or a psychological issue, or because of that bigotry preventing and impeding people from having a family?
Why then are you more concerned about treating the symptoms rather than the cause?

Dades

It's telling that all the operations purporting to cure people of that sexuality that comes with acceptence issues are without exception backed by a Christian group who alos teach that being gay is wrong.

Talk about being the cause and the solution to your problems.

JimiTime

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Again, I think its up to each individual to decide for themselves and don't consider it my business what anyone chooses.

Leaving my political, and religious ideologies out of it, I don't think its as simple as you present it. I would like to see a case as to how it can be ascertained, that a heterosexual person is heterosexual due to something other than it being the the human sexuality that compliments their physiology etc. What rational reason could there be for a person to say that they feel that there is something wrong with being a heterosexual. So until a reasonable case can be made that heterosexuality is indeed something that can be 'righted', I'm not sure a professional could really offer anything.

Also, as far as choice is concerned, there are a few things i would consider as a rule of thumb:

1) Does the choice, or the allowance of the choice affect others, or wider society as a whole.

2) Is it a 'bad' choice. What I mean by that, is the question needs to be asked, if there person is mentally sound to make such a choice, or if there are negative consequences to their choice. For example, people suffering from Body integrity Disorder can wish to have various healthy limbs removed. This is an obvious case of maybe looking at a persons mental choice etc.

Why you have a view on what others should and should not do about their own sexual choices is a mystery.

Well there are a few reasons, but essentially I don't wish to invade on peoples choices in terms of sexuality. In general, I take issue if I believe that there is something that I believe will effect me, or society as a whole.

Are you not able to leave them alone and make their own choices, just as they leave you alone to make yours?

Of course, but as I said, thats not really my issue.

Thats just nonsense. Fred Phelps is a bigot insofar as he believes he has god on his side in his preaching of hate about others choices which extends to picketing funerals of gays and hurling loud vocal abuse at the mourners.

s
Bizarrely enough, the picketing of funeral that he does, is because they are US servicemen, not that they are gay. Thats what I recall anyway. Not sure why, but he calls it a 'fag army'

The poster you accuse of being akin to Fred Phelps is nothing of the sort, and just because you may not like his views, there is no need to call him names like that - it demeans your argument when you make it personal.

Nail on the head. I think topics like these are very emotive, and admittedly, i can sometimes forget that we are talking about people in the heat of it all. It would however, be a lot more conducive to the conversation, if we all gave each other the benefit of the doubt and tried not to look for offence. I do understand how offence can be taken, but I can only say that its not my intention to cause offence. My view is automatically offensive to many, and if people don't wish for me to stick around due to feeling I'm a bigot or whatever, then I will go. I hate seeing people like Actor going on about "bum-sex" all the time, and blatantly looking to offend. I equally hate seeing 'bigot' and 'homophobe' being carted out every time someone has a differing view. It reminds me of when 'racist' gets trotted out if someone suggests that we must cut down on immigration.

Anyway, I appreciate your observation, but alas, I probably wont be around for much longer as I'll be away.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What really gets my goat is that people who trot out this BS have no idea- or don't give a ****e - of the real life implications of their statements.

I, a mother and a grandmother, have been likened to a child abuser simply because I am homosexual. This extends to every Gay parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, friend etc out there. The implication is don't trust your children with the Gays - they are just like pedophiles and need treatment so they can be 'cured' i.e. made 'safe'. :mad:

That is an outrageously offensive statement!

And yet it is YOU who made it not I. I did not equate homosexuals with child abusers. Its a common misconception in these conversations that to mention such things is to equate them. I see no point in pointing this out anymore, so all I can do is tell you that I don't equate you to a child abuser, and I've seen very few who do.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet it is YOU who made it not I. I did not equate homosexuals with child abusers.

That's a lie.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not entirely. I certainly wouldn't like to see heterosexuals seek to change their sexuality,and would ask on what basis it could be seen that their sexuality is an issue. I believe other sexualities have valid issues linked to them.

Jimi, what issues do homosexuals share with people with attractions to children or animals which they do not share with heterosexuals?

Why are you lumping in homosexuals with paedophiles as having issues, but not heterosexuals?

Why do you think that homosexuality is deficient and what evidence are you using to conclude it?

JimiTime

jill_valentine wrote: »

You could be in for a land here.

Societal pressures aside, the "Try lesbianism!" campaign could have a fairly strong deal on offer for women. Much much lower risk of domestic violence, better sex, lower STD rates, more autonomy, better dispute resolution.... and that's before you get down to the comedy "you can share clothes!" stuff.

If what you say is true, and can be shown, then you have a point. Obviously, I'd still have an objection on Godly grounds, but if it can be shown that a woman is better off being a lesbian, then we'd have to deal with the evidence put forward.

JimiTime

Sycopat wrote: »

Your consistent inability or refusal to tell the difference between an anecdote and data lead me to do this.

This is the report, carried out on behalf of the American Psychological Association which found that sexual identity changing treatments don't work and can cause harm.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

I draw your attention specifically to page 86, sub heading Recommendations
and Future Directions, sentence 2, which reads:

(a) an enduring change to an
individual’s sexual orientation as a result of SOCE is
unlikely, and some participants were harmed by the
interventions

This is a conclusion based on review of data and research interpreted by qualified professionals.

Not an anecdote.

I'll get to reading that as I'll be away for a while, but on my quick breeze through, I see claims of data but no references to this data? Just a claim of data. Just before I start, seeing as how you read it, is there links to the data they allude to?

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet it is YOU who made it not I. I did not equate homosexuals with child abusers. Its a common misconception in these conversations that to mention such things is to equate them. I see no point in pointing this out anymore, so all I can do is tell you that I don't equate you to a child abuser, and I've seen very few who do.

No Jimi, its a common tactic. You talk about homosexuality in one sentence and then paedophilia the next. You thus create a linkage that you can then deny when you're challenged on it. Blair did the same with Iraq and Al Qaeda.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well there are a few reasons, but essentially I don't wish to invade on peoples choices in terms of sexuality. In general, I take issue if I believe that there is something that I believe will effect me, or society as a whole..

...talking out of both sides of yer gob there Jimi, and neither of them is too convincing. The biggest spreader of aids worldwide is heterosexual activity - how many posts have ye dedicated to that?

jill_valentine

JimiTime wrote: »

Leaving my political, and religious ideologies out of it, I don't think its as simple as you present it. I would like to see a case as to how it can be ascertained, that a heterosexual person is heterosexual due to something other than it being the the human sexuality that compliments their physiology etc. What rational reason could there be for a person to say that they feel that there is something wrong with being a heterosexual.

Rational you say.

A woman is more likely to be murdered by a male intimate partner than any other person in her life. In fact, homicide is actually one of the leading causes of death in pregnant women, rather than most medical conditions.

If it were simply a case of being able to pick your orientation based on the rational pros and cons, "not being murdered" seems like a fairly winning argument.

As I say, I think you could be in for a land here Jimitime. If you step away from the assumption that heterosexual relationships are inherently superior and start breaking it down to some objective list of pros and cons, you might regret venturing down this avenue.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll get to reading that as I'll be away for a while, but on my quick breeze through, I see claims of data but no references to this data? Just a claim of data. Just before I start, seeing as how you read it, is there links to the data they allude to?

All references are at the very end of it so there's no shortage of verifiable data. The same can't be said for those who 'convert' peoples sexuality.....

Sycopat

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll get to reading that as I'll be away for a while, but on my quick breeze through, I see claims of data but no references to this data? Just a claim of data. Just before I start, seeing as how you read it, is there links to the data they allude to?

Try the references section, clearly labelled as part of the contents.

Pages 93 through 117 inclusive.

Appendix A comes with it's own references section.

And Appendix B, a breakdown of the studies reviewed.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll get to reading that as I'll be away for a while, but on my quick breeze through, I see claims of data but no references to this data? Just a claim of data. Just before I start, seeing as how you read it, is there links to the data they allude to?

Translation: You'll never read it. Reject it anyway. Then pretend you were never shown it.

Galvasean

Well considering this is a guy who has repeatedly gone on the record saying he doesn't trust data presented by studies...

ShooterSF

jill_valentine wrote: »

You could be in for a land here.

Societal pressures aside, the "Try lesbianism!" campaign could have a fairly strong deal on offer for women. Much much lower risk of domestic violence,better sex, lower STD rates, more autonomy, better dispute resolution.... and that's before you get down to the comedy "you can share clothes!" stuff.

Hey some of us guys are compassionate lovers! I think I even met one once.

jill_valentine

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hey some of us guys are compassionate lovers! I think I even met one once.

Oh I'm sure those other bad sex guys are all non-boardies.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

If what you say is true, and can be shown, then you have a point. Obviously, I'd still have an objection on Godly grounds, but if it can be shown that a woman is better off being a lesbian, then we'd have to deal with the evidence put forward.

DOH! What more evidence do you need other than the completely and irrefutably obvious - that women who are more attracted to women are better off being with women. And men who are more attracted to men are better off being with men. DOH, again. Really. Get a grip.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

If a person WANTS to change, I advocate them being allowed to do so without legal impediment, intolerance or abuse. I also advocate a professional being allowed to help them if they so wish, unless it can be shown, that the professional's methods are a cause of real harm.

Again, would your stance also include people who wanted to change from heterosexual to homosexual?

Penn wrote: »

I understand that (though I vehemently disagree with it). But hypothetically, if it was possible to change from one sexuality to another, would you agree that changing from heterosexual to homosexual would be beneficial under the situations I described, and if not, why?

ButtimersLaw

old hippy wrote: »

Of course it is and those who serve it up (either as raw hatred or butter wouldn't melt fashion) are entirely aware of it.

That's the way real abusers operate. You've been witness to plenty of posters who have been very vocal on what they think of us deviants and how we are ill/dangerous/etc. And yet, the only malice I can see, is theirs.

And some people wonder why there are pride marches? When all round you are judging and condemning you - should we be silent and meekly accept the injustices and hatreds?

Hell, no!

“abusers” are not confined to one group of people, and there are abusers in every wal of society.

I haven't seen plenty of posters who have been vocal and calling homosexual people “deviants” and labelling homosexuals either “ill” or “dangerous”. Granted i am not here a long time, but have not seen the “planty of posters” to whom you refer.

You don't need an excuse to march, and I'd suggest one should march because one wants to march, and I seriously doubt Pride marches exist because of “plenty of posters”.

It's always tempting to believe that “we” are a group, and “we” should all do the same things and “we” think the same way and so on. The reality is that gay people are as individual, and as disparate, and as different in their thinking as the rest of society, and there is, in fact, no “we” .

Bannasidhe

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

“abusers” are not confined to one group of people, and there are abusers in every wal of society.

I haven't seen plenty of posters who have been vocal and calling homosexual people “deviants” and labelling homosexuals either “ill” or “dangerous”. Granted i am not here a long time, but have not seen the “planty of posters” to whom you refer.

You don't need an excuse to march, and I'd suggest one should march because one wants to march, and I seriously doubt Pride marches exist because of “plenty of posters”.

It's always tempting to believe that “we” are a group, and “we” should all do the same things and “we” think the same way and so on. The reality is that gay people are as individual, and as disparate, and as different in their thinking as the rest of society, and there is, in fact, no “we” .

Yet you don't feel the need share with Jimi, who so casually lumps homosexuals in with pedophiles under the general heading of 'people whose sexuality orientation have inherent issue', this nugget of information.

old hippy

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

I haven't seen plenty of posters who have been vocal and calling homosexual people “deviants” and labelling homosexuals either “ill” or “dangerous”. Granted i am not here a long time, but have not seen the “planty of posters” to whom you refer.

Well, there you go, then. :rolleyes:

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet it is YOU who made it not I. I did not equate homosexuals with child abusers.

Yes you did.

ButtimersLaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet you don't feel the need share with Jimi, who so casually lumps homosexuals in with pedophiles under the general heading of 'people whose sexuality orientation have inherent issue', this nugget of information.

I am not sure what “feel the need to share” entails, and anyone who equates homosexuality with pedophilia is simply wrong as all the stastics show that pedophilia is most likely to happen between adult makes and juvenile females.


So even if the other poster had claimed that (which he claims he didn't), it would have been factually incorrect.

old hippy wrote: »

That's the way real abusers operate. You've been witness to plenty of posters who have been very vocal on what they think of us deviants and how we are ill/dangerous/etc.

It seems that anyone coming here and calling people the names you claim would be in breach of the charter, which clearly states:


Charter & Rules

1. No personal insults. Attack the post not the poster. If you can't keep your head, take it elsewhere.

2. Respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different from yours. Forum moderators reserve the right to take action against posts or posters which they deem to be offensive or intended to inflame.





As I have seen none of the name calling you claim plenty of posters have been very vocal about here, good advice seems to be to report them to the moderators who will take action.

JimiTime

old hippy wrote: »

Yes you did.

No, I'm afraid I didn't. But for those who think I do equate homosexuals and child abusers, I can't be any clearer than saying that I DO NOT equate them. So whatever way you read things, or how you wish to project your anger at those who disagree with you, you can remember this concise post telling you that I DO NOT EQUATE HOMOSEXUALS WITH CHILD ABUSERS. You can keep telling me that I do, but it will make little difference to the fact that you are wrong. You are free to add it to your growing list of feelings you have about what I am etc if you wish, but all in all, its a worthless contribution seeing how I don't equate homosexuals with child abusers. Now, you may be simply using dishonest lazy weasel tactics by trying to push this view which I don't hold upon me, and attack it like the strawman it is. Or you may be just confused about why other sexualities are brought up in such a conversation. So for those who aren't just being weasels I'll try enlighten you. The likes of attractions to children etc, are things that we can all agree SHOULD be changed if possible, and I'm sure any reasonable person would not deny someone with such attractions from trying to change. It is also an example how sexuality can be skewed. So by using something we can all agree on, we can hopefully garner an understanding on those who feel that their own sexuality has been skewed. It in NO WAY equates homosexuals to child abusers, nor does it look to render homosexuals guilty by association. It aims to show that sexuality can be disordered or skewed, NOT to equate the actions of every sexual desire.

Sarky

Choose your words more carefully then. Careless phrasing and generalisation is something Christians, terrorists and child rapists do.