Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

JimiTime

Sycopat wrote: »

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.

Will do. Cheers. How did you find it when you looked into it? You reckon they have been accurately represented?

ButtimersLaw

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

It is noticeable is that no one seems to have reported you, for had you said such a thing it would be against the charter and could have earned you a ban or similar. Why do you think some prefer to accuse you of saying something which is against the charter, but don't report you for it?

A mystery.

Sarky

This isn't the other forum. Posters are given leeway here to hang themselves.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

This isn't the other forum. Posters are given leeway here to hang themselves.

Which they invariably achieve with no help from us.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

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. ......

The Nazis didn't approve of Gays either.



See the way that works?

You linked homosexuality and paedophillia in a sly "mention them in the same breath" way. You've been caught out. Be a man, admit it, and move on.

ButtimersLaw

Sarky wrote: »

This isn't the other forum. Posters are given leeway here to hang themselves.

Then perhaps the charter should be amended.

keane2097

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

It is noticeable is that no one seems to have reported you, for had you said such a thing it would be against the charter and could have earned you a ban or similar. Why do you think some prefer to accuse you of saying something which is against the charter, but don't report you for it?

A mystery.

What's with all this new fangled back seat moderation?

Delirium

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Then perhaps the charter should be amended.

A&A Feedback

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Please detail, using support from unbiased, professional organisations, how homosexuality has issues similar to those other sexualities you listed it with.

Please support the notion that homosexuality is something that requires a treatment while heterosexuality does not.

It's a bit rich you speaking of weasels considering your own dishonest behaviour....

The Mad Hatter

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

It is noticeable is that no one seems to have reported you, for had you said such a thing it would be against the charter and could have earned you a ban or similar. Why do you think some prefer to accuse you of saying something which is against the charter, but don't report you for it?

It's not against the charter to hold opinions. Equating homosexuality to pedophilia, though a vile opinion, is not personal abuse. Therefore no breach of charter.

Dades

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Then perhaps the charter should be amended.

Unless someone breaks the door down and barges in here throwing insults around, we don't really intervene.

Better to let opinion-holders attempt to justify those opinions in a somewhat adult manner. That at least gives thread-readers the chance to make up their own minds on the basis of what they read.

ButtimersLaw

Dades wrote: »

Unless someone breaks the door down and barges in here throwing insults around, we don't really intervene.

Better to let opinion-holders attempt to justify those opinions in a somewhat adult manner. That at least gives thread-readers the chance to make up their own minds on the basis of what they read.

Maybe you don't equate calling someone who is homosexual a pedophile as abuse, but I do.

keane2097

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Maybe you don't equate calling someone who is homosexual a pedophile as abuse, but I do.

So what's the plan? Ban them for saying it? They'll still have the opinion but won't be around to have to defend it when everyone calls it out for the horrible shit it is.

Banning people for opinions you don't like is the stuff of religion, no thanks.

Sycopat

JimiTime wrote: »

Will do. Cheers. How did you find it when you looked into it? You reckon they have been accurately represented?

Ha!

Pointing you in the right direction so you can do your own research is far as I go for free.

You want me to do your research for you, you can pay me.

My rate is quite cheap, but given that I'll be working for you, it's not my field of expertise, and I'm currently funded by another party to do work I actually have an interest in, I'll be expecting a seriously premium offer.

Dades

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Maybe you don't equate calling someone who is homosexual a pedophile as abuse, but I do.

Someone already pointed you to our Feedback Thread. Stop derailing this one.

robindch

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

Maybe you don't equate calling someone who is homosexual a pedophile as abuse, but I do.

ButtimersLaw - if you're unhappy about a post, then please report it using board's reporting mechanism. If you're unhappy with the moderators' response (if any), then you can take the issue to the feedback forum.

thanks.

ButtimersLaw

robindch wrote: »

ButtimersLaw - if you're unhappy about a post, then please report it using board's reporting mechanism. If you're unhappy with the moderators' response (if any), then you can take the issue to the feedback forum.

thanks.

Thanks. I am not unhappy about any posts.

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, what harmful treatment exactly?

you know, the kind of treatment this whole conversation is about and has been deemed harmful, which is why they're banning it in the first place? I thought from context it would be obvious.

JimiTime wrote: »

Secondly, I see the issue in relation to people under 18 and coercion. However, I'm sure any phychologist worth their salt can tell the difference between coercion and a real desire to change. The fact that the legislation does not deal with specifics, leads me to believe its a political move.

And I'm sure the kind of people who would practice treatment that is deemed not to work and be potentially harmful on children are bastions of ethical practice, aren't they?

like this charming fella who claimed he could "cure" gay people.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well look at the flipside. Where will these folk turn now? This legislation wont stop what you are talking about. Whereas before they may have been treated by professionals, they may now turn to more dubious options. The advocates for reparation are now out of the reach of the APA also. The APA were in a position where they could have seen specific practices that were dubious, or harmful and reigned it in. Now, it could possibly become a free for all.

or they'd see it for what it is, that this is quackery that can be severely damaging to children.


I want you to watch this Jimi. seriously, watch it and see exactly what kind of abuse the "treatment" you're advocating for actually is. and I want everyone else here to look at it too, because it's absolutely horrifying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ7VigOWm_M

Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUes86A378

Part 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHOvP6tMhEg

and I want to tell you Jimi that I think you are a monster, you and anyone else who would stick up for the kind of abuse these children have to go through, are monsters. you know why? because I don't believe for a second that you're actually as ignorant as you claim to be about the very real cost of life and the damage of the quackery you're championing here, and your comments like "lol, what harmful treatments!?" show the utter flippancy and contempt you show such a serious issue. you know well this bull**** is harmful, you just don't care.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

[...] I want to tell you Jimi that I think you are a monster [...]

Not an appropriate comment. Saying that this kind of behaviour is monstrous is fine. Calling Jimi a monster is not.

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

you know, the kind of treatment this whole conversation is about and has been deemed harmful, which is why they're banning it in the first place? I thought from context it would be obvious.

And I've asked for specifics. This isn't, 'This particular method is harmful', Its ALL of it no matter what it is, is banned. I want to know what it is, specifically, that is harmful.

And I'm sure the kind of people who would practice treatment that is deemed not to work and be potentially harmful on children are bastions of ethical practice, aren't they?

Well, until we can establish what is and isn't harmful in this, I certainly can't make the call in terms of what you say. I've repeatedly said that some of the methods I've heard about like electro shock etc, are quite obviously things that need to be protected against, in minors for sure. Coercion is another cause of concern. When methods are presented, we can judge them on merit, rather than letting a political ideology dictate that some people are not allowed choose what they want. I also said a while back, that I'm not concerned about the fact that this has been banned on minors. It may be a good thing. I don't like the political precedent, that I suspect to be at play.

or they'd see it for what it is, that this is quackery that can be severely damaging to children.

You say that emotively as a transgender person who cannot fathom or tolerate opinions that contradict your own.

I want you to watch this Jimi. seriously, watch it and see exactly what kind of abuse the "treatment" you're advocating for actually is. and I want everyone else here to look at it too, because it's absolutely horrifying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ7VigOWm_M

Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUes86A378

Part 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHOvP6tMhEg

That was certainly horrific on Kirk. You see, what you have presented there is a specific therapy. One that I agree is horrid. On a 5 year old too!! Awful.

and I want to tell you Jimi that I think you are a monster

I'll add that to the list:D So I'm a MONSTEROUS, Rampant, homophobic, bigot. Do I get a prize?
Seriously though, these moronic ramblings are tiresome.

, you and anyone else who would stick up for the kind of abuse these children have to go through, are monsters.

Well, I hope you realise how stupid you've been now that I've shown you that you're getting your knickers in a twist with a phantom of your own invention, just like Bannaidhe did with child abusers and the likes. Is this just tactics so that you can just draw on emotional outrage or something? You should take a breath, realise that not everyone who has a different view to you is just a hateful whatever. There seems to be a great intolerance to people who disagree, to the extent where some of you make up characters in your own heads, and project them on people so that you don't have to actually engage with them in any meaningful way, or deal with what they ACTUALLY say or ACTUALLY believe.

you know why? because I don't believe for a second that you're actually as ignorant as you claim to be about the very real cost of life and the damage of the quackery you're championing here, and your comments like "lol, what harmful treatments!?" show the utter flippancy and contempt you show such a serious issue. you know well this bull**** is harmful, you just don't care.

Blah de blah de blah. More nonsense strawman moronic rambling, talking about a person you made up. 'Championing'. Ha! Now when I count to ten, you are going to wake up, and realise the demon you've been fighting, is just the voice in your own head. 1,2........10.*click*

:rolleyes:

JimiTime

Sycopat wrote: »

Ha!

Pointing you in the right direction so you can do your own research is far as I go for free.

You want me to do your research for you, you can pay me.

My rate is quite cheap, but given that I'll be working for you, it's not my field of expertise, and I'm currently funded by another party to do work I actually have an interest in, I'll be expecting a seriously premium offer.

So did YOU feel when you read it, that the APA represented it fairly. I didn't think 'Yes' or 'No', was doing my research for me. But if you'd rather not elaborate on what you found, I certainly wont demand anything. I do tend to find in these things, that people who believe that posting a study or somesuch automatically wins the argument, very rarely have actually looked at what they are presenting. As you read it all, I thought you have a useful contribution in this context. IOf you don't though, you could just answer yes or no to the question of if you think they were accuarately represented by the APA report.

Links234

robindch wrote: »

Not an appropriate comment. Saying that this kind of behaviour is monstrous is fine. Calling Jimi a monster is not.

You'll have to excuse me if I was blunt, or even if that was abusive, but I don't have any other words to describe someone who seems to think this kind of child abuse is something worth championing, would play down or ignore serious issues facing LGBT youth such as homelessness and suicidality, and who's only concern seems to be that "religious freedom" not be impeded in any conceivable way. I don't know how else to describe him, bigotory doesn't do it justice, homophobia falls short, because this is someone to whom child abuse, youth homelessness and suicide seem preferable to religious people not getting their own way in all matters.

40 Percent Of Homeless Youth Are LGBT, Family Rejection Is Leading Cause.

No part of me can understand the mentality behind championing and advocating this kind of abuse, so I have no other words for it, it is monstrous. I won't call him a monster again, but that's a viewpoint I cannot in any way comprehend and my vocabulary falls short of any other description.

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me if I was blunt, or even if that was abusive, but I don't have any other words to describe someone who seems to think this kind of child abuse is something worth championing, would play down or ignore serious issues facing LGBT youth such as homelessness and suicidality, and who's only concern seems to be that "religious freedom" not be impeded in any conceivable way. I don't know how else to describe him, bigotory doesn't do it justice, homophobia falls short, because this is someone to whom child abuse, youth homelessness and suicide seem preferable to religious people not getting their own way in all matters.

40 Percent Of Homeless Youth Are LGBT, Family Rejection Is Leading Cause.

No part of me can understand the mentality behind championing and advocating this kind of abuse, so I have no other words for it, it is monstrous. I won't call him a monster again, but that's a viewpoint I cannot in any way comprehend and my vocabulary falls short of any other description.

Hey, I is Jimi, I hates the gays and love championing child abuse.




Now, you can rest that lazy mind of yours Links and keep believing that there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who hates the gays and love child abuse and eating kittens, and those who loves the gays.

Moron! (Sorry mods, but there isn't a word appropriate enough. Idiot just doesn't have enough punch, and strawheaded imbecile doesn't go far enough)

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

Moron! (Sorry mods, but there isn't a word appropriate enough. Idiot just doesn't have enough punch, and strawheaded imbecile doesn't go far enough)

what an utterly childish outburst

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

what an utterly childish outburst

I just take offence at all the racism you peddle. The fact that you say that you want to see hitler rise and gas all jews and black people. Well, it just gets my goat. How people can can be so racist just boils my blood, and I think your type of xenophobic racism is just horrendous. Oh, and you are also monsterist. What have you got against monsters Links. We just want what everyone wants, apart from fresh kitty meat of course, but you just want to keep us shunned and underground. One day I tells ye..... [/end point]

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

And I've asked for specifics. This isn't, 'This particular method is harmful', Its ALL of it no matter what it is, is banned. I want to know what it is, specifically, that is harmful.

Well, until we can establish what is and isn't harmful in this, I certainly can't make the call in terms of what you say. I've repeatedly said that some of the methods I've heard about like electro shock etc, are quite obviously things that need to be protected against, in minors for sure. Coercion is another cause of concern. When methods are presented, we can judge them on merit, rather than letting a political ideology dictate that some people are not allowed choose what they want. I also said a while back, that I'm not concerned about the fact that this has been banned on minors. It may be a good thing. I don't like the political precedent, that I suspect to be at play.

Here's the thing, you're still advocating for something that is intrinsically harmful, and no matter how you obfuscate the issue, say that "well, of course I'm not a fan of that method" that is still the case, because no matter what the method, be it electro-shock, psychoanalysis, George Reker's experiments, pray-away-the-gay camps, freaking magnets, it doesn't matter what the method is, it's going to be harmful because it's still an attempt to change someone's sexuality. They are all harmful, all of it, because you can't change a person's sexuality orientation, and the only people who are trying to do it are groups with extreme bias and prejudices against LGBT people. Whatever the method, it's abuse, and you are still advocating that it should be allowed above all notions that it's harmful.

And you suggest that there's a political ideology at play, yet discount the obvious religious ideology on the other side of the debate.

JimiTime wrote: »

You say that emotively as a transgender person who cannot fathom or tolerate opinions that contradict your own.

Doesn't matter if I'm transgender or not, it's still quackery of the highest order.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your condescending muck, because you obviously don't want to take these issues seriously at all.

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

I won't bother responding to the rest of your condescending muck, because you obviously don't want to take these issues seriously at all.

The issue is the voices in your head telling you what you think I 'Champion' 'advocate' and believe in general. Until you decide to stop this unadulterated, emotional pukeworthy clap trap that started with your silly 'Monster' nonsense, then I certainly wont lament the loss of your input.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue is the voices in your head telling you what you think I 'Champion' 'advocate' and believe in general. Until you decide to stop this unadulterated, emotional pukeworthy clap trap that started with your silly 'Monster' nonsense, then I certainly wont lament the loss of your input.

Jimi, you advocate sending people under the age of 18 off to have their sexuality fixed if you believe the service works and they ask to change it. To expand further on a similar question I asked you. If your teenage son or daughter came out, would you encourage them to repress their homosexuality as you believe it to be inherently sinful?

Because the truth is, attitudes like that contribute far more to the rationale of a person who wants to change their sexuality, it also has a major impact upon their mental health. Then you add to it further by sending a service that is likely to damage their mental health more than anything.

JimiTime

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jimi, you advocate sending people under the age of 18 off to have their sexuality fixed if you believe the service works and they ask to change it.

You don't send a person who wants to go. The person simply goes. I advocate a person seeking help if they wish. I would not advocate children, like the one in the video, being sent to these things. i wouldn't recommend any headshrinkery to children to be perfectly honest. If it is true, that some gay people trace their sexual desire back to events or environments they were exposed to (Like the testimony I posted earlier), and therapy helps, then i don't see an issue with them seeking help.

To expand further on a similar question I asked you. If your teenage son or daughter came out, would you encourage them to repress their homosexuality as you believe it to be inherently sinful?

Depends what you mean by encourage. So many on this thread have shown that they are incapable of civil, rational discourse in this matter. Too many folk just want to blow up, misrepresent or simply make up what is being said. No doubt unless i said something like, 'i would say that hey man, gays are great, heres two tickets to Barbara Streisand, just make sure you look Faabulous', I'll be construed as some kind of child abuser. Now while the growing list of things to describe me as has become a bit of a game at this stage, at the same time it has grown wearisome.

Because the truth is, attitudes like that contribute far more to the rationale of a person who wants to change their sexuality, it also has a major impact upon their mental health. Then you add to it further by sending a service that is likely to damage their mental health more than anything.

Like I said to you in answer to your original question. I don't really value the profession as a whole here anyway, so I would not send or encourage any child of mine to such things. If they genuinely wanted to go, and I researched it, and found it not to be anything like the video links posted or something similar, then there is a chance that I wouldn't stand in their way. One things for sure, and that is that I wouldn't discourage them from wanting to change. I certainly wouldn't want them going to something I think to be harmful or indeed worthless though.

King Mob

It's always fun to watch Jimi get less and less coherent and more and more rambly when people call him on his bull.
More manic even...

As I said before, he demonstrates perfectly how backward, bigoted and dishonest positions like his are.