Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?
Options
Comments
-
It's always fun to watch Jimi get less and less coherent and more and more rambly when people call him on his bull.
As I said before, he demonstrates perfectly how backward, bigoted and dishonest positions like his are.
Ha ha. true to form KM, true to form.
Insult, insult, link to study I've never read, insult, insult, distraction tactic when asked about study I never read, insult. Latch onto irrelevant part of post and misrepresent it, insult, insult, backslap, backslap, compensate for small penis, insult, insult, scoff, pretend i love science, insult, scoff, insult. Pretend that my irrelevant questions are super smashing deal breakers that cause fear in all those who see them, insult, scoff insult.
I think those 4 lines just sum you up KM, but its nice to see you care so much *smooch*:)0 -
as I said manic and dishonest....Ha ha. true to form KM, true to form.
Insult, insult, link to study I've never read, insult, insult, distraction tactic when asked about study I never read, insult. Latch onto irrelevant part of post and misrepresent it, insult, insult, backslap, backslap, compensate for small penis, insult, insult, scoff, pretend i love science, insult, scoff, insult. Pretend that my irrelevant questions are super smashing deal breakers that cause fear in all those who see them, insult, scoff insult.
I think those 4 lines just sum you up KM, but its nice to see you care so much *smooch*:)
Have you considered the fact people are being so mean to you and don't respect you or your opinion because you are so dishonest and bigoted?
And of course, if you really were offended by all this meanness directed at you, you could always just not post here. Cause every time you ignore questions, distort facts, dodge points and do all the other tactics you use, people are going to call you out on it. (Course you could always try being honest either.)
But then you wouldn't get the chance to play the victim and use that to excuse and rationalise bigotry....0 -
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.
This from the guy who accused me of running down rabbit holes? How wonderfully ironic!
You'll have to forgive my poor typing, I am away from keyboard for the weekend. Jimi, you asserted that the claim that treatments didnt work and could cause harm was anecdotal. I gave you the source of the claim. Its not an anecdote. Its a report. Based on observations and measurements not hearsay and claims.
Your other questions are not yes or no, the fact you think they are is telling to me that you are either quite naive and dont understand what you are asking me for when you ask my opinion, or you are attempting to fool me into a position where no matter what I answer I will have to justify my conclusion and you will attempt to attack my justification as if that undermines the study, or the fact that you were wrong. I don't believe you to be naive Jimi, you seem quite shrewd and articulate when it suits you to be. So you can figure out where I think you're trying to go with this line of questioning. Particularly given your stated mistrust of studies and belief they are biased against religious people. (which appears to me to stem from you disliking the way science tries observing and measuring peoples actions and reactions instead of just believing what they say uncritically because they are religious. But maybe you're simply unaware of the difference.)
What you suspect, and seem to think makes a difference, is that i haven't fully read the report. It doesn't matter. Its still not an anecdote. It is a real report.
What I will say is that they used a significant number of studies, many with significant numbers of participants. I have criticisms but none i believe on topic here (gender bias: more males observed than females) and as i'm not a psychologist i cant comment meaningfully on the interpretation, but they do appear to have made enough observations to reach decent conclusions. If you have problems with psychologists using their expertise to reach their conclusions, maybe you ought to rethink your position advocating they have greater powers to intervene in peoples
lives?
Just a thought.
Although really, if we've reached the point where you are refusing to trust the judgement of people you want to give more power to, its time to stop this charade.0 -
as I said manic and dishonest....
Have you considered the fact people are being so mean to you and don't respect you or your opinion because you are so dishonest and bigoted?
Of course, its what us Monsters do. I didn't get my RAMPANT badge off Nodin for being coherant and honest. have ye learned nothing KM.And of course, if you really were offended by all this meanness directed at you,
Not offended in the slightest KM. And its not meanness. Its stupidity, illiteracy, cack-mindedness, stuborness, weaseling, dishonesty, tongue in own ear syndrome, wilful ignorance and confusion.
Those who don't suffer the above you'll find simply engage in civil conversation with me, and I with them.you could always just not post here. Cause every time you ignore questions, distort facts, dodge points and do all the other tactics you use, people are going to call you out on it. (Course you could always try being honest either.)
But then you wouldn't get the chance to play the victim and use that to excuse and rationalise bigotry....
Well I don't want to be an IRRATIONAL bigot now would I. that would be a step too far!0 -
Not offended in the slightest KM. And its not meanness. Its stupidity, illiteracy, cack-mindedness, stuborness, weaseling, dishonesty, tongue in own ear syndrome, wilful ignorance and confusion.
Those who don't suffer the above you'll find simply engage in civil conversation with me, and I with them.
Cept that isn't what they are. It's what you pretend they are so you can avoid questions and points you don't like, typically because they expose your position for what it is.
People who do try to take your point seriously and address it with care, are always ignored dodged by you, as demonstrated most immediatly Sycopat.
Basically the only one guilty of what you are accusing is you, and you show it in spades.0 -
Advertisement
-
This from the guy who accused me of running down rabbit holes? How wonderfully ironic!
You'll have to forgive my poor typing, I am away from keyboard for the weekend. Jimi, you asserted that the claim that treatments didnt work and could cause harm was anecdotal. I gave you the source of the claim. Its not an anecdote. Its a report. Based on observations and measurements not hearsay and claims.
Your other questions are not yes or no, the fact you think they are is telling to me that you are either quite naive and dont understand what you are asking me for when you ask my opinion, or you are attempting to fool me into a position where no matter what I answer I will have to justify my conclusion and you will attempt to attack my justification as if that undermines the study, or the fact that you were wrong. I don't believe you to be naive Jimi, you seem quite shrewd and articulate when it suits you to be. So you can figure out where I think you're trying to go with this line of questioning. Particularly given your stated mistrust of studies and belief they are biased against religious people. (which appears to me to stem from you disliking the way science tries observing and measuring peoples actions and reactions instead of just believing what they say uncritically because they are religious. But maybe you're simply unaware of the difference.)
What you suspect, and seem to think makes a difference, is that i haven't fully read the report. It doesn't matter. Its still not an anecdote. It is a real report.
What I will say is that they used a significant number of studies, many with significant numbers of participants. I have criticisms but none i believe on topic here (gender bias: more males observed than females) and as i'm not a psychologist i cant comment meaningfully on the interpretation, but they do appear to have made enough observations to reach decent conclusions. If you have problems with psychologists using their expertise to reach their conclusions, maybe you ought to rethink your position advocating they have greater powers to intervene in peoples
lives?
Just a thought.
Although really, if we've reached the point where you are refusing to trust the judgement of people you want to give more power to, its time to stop this charade.
Its a simple question, do you think they have represented the studies accurately in their report? Its fine if you haven't read them, its just that there are some who have raised objections to their use. I'm just asking you what you think seeing as how you read it, as I'm certainly not going to have it all read any time soon and I'm only going to be able to check up on a few of the studies they cite.
And yes, I am very wary of studies in these fields, and all social science experiments etc. Just by sticking the word 'science' on something doesn't mean it gets an automatic 'It must be so' to me.0 -
Cept that isn't what they are. It's what you pretend they are so you can avoid questions and points you don't like, typically because they expose your position for what it is.
People who do try to take your point seriously and address it with care, are always ignored dodged by you, as demonstrated Sycopat.
Basically the only one guilty of what you are accusing is you, and you show it in spades.
Well I'm a dishonest, Monsterous rampant homophobe bigot (Oh and I can't forget the mod Robindch who started down the insult path many pages ago. I'm also a repressed homosexual). So yeah, What do you expect?0 -
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.
Ohh come on, all one would expect a parent to do; is to say that it's fine that they're gay and that there is nothing wrong with that. But the issue is with some of the more hardcore religious people is that they would start to point out how sinful and against god their behaviour is (or go as far as telling them to repress their homosexuality and to pretty much flat out deny that they're attracted to a person of the same sex, which really wasn't unclear in my previous post). Some will disown their son or daughter for being gay. This may not necessarily apply to you but it does to many.
You have no interest in resolving the reasons why some people are not comfortable with their sexual orientation. You simply claim that it is an unrecognised disease or mental disorder and that it should be treated as such. How exactly do you expect posters to respond to you?0 -
Stop whinging about it?Well I'm a dishonest, Monsterous rampant homophobe bigot (Oh and I can't forget the mod Robindch who started down the insult path many pages ago. I'm also a repressed homosexual). So yeah, What do you expect?
Consider playing the victim somewhere else.
Or you know, honestly evaluate and reconsider the bigoted, ill-informed, uneducated, dishonest and out and out vile crap you claim....0 -
You have no interest in resolving the reasons why some people are not comfortable with their sexual orientation. You simply claim that it is an unrecognised disease or mental disorder and that it should be treated as such. How exactly do you expect posters to respond to you?
Nope. I said that a person who wishes to change should not be subjected to legal impediment or abuse, and that a reasonable case can be made for certain sexual desires to be an issue physiologically and sociologically. If such a person WANTS to try change it, then the therapies on offer should be looked at on merit and discredited where appropriate. A political stance should not impede on a persons choice to want to change. however, i aslo said that the fact that its only with minors in this case may not be a bad thing, though if my suspicion of political shenanigans are at work, then its a bad precedent.
As for responses, I expect posters to deal with the points and not to keep looking for opportunities to name call. Its like tourettes at this stage. "homophobe", "Bigot".0 -
Advertisement
-
Stop whinging about it?
I'm not allowed whinge now? Fascist bully boy!Consider playing the victim somewhere else.
What do you mean. You are MY victims Muwah ha ha ha ha ha.Or you know, honestly evaluate and reconsider the bigoted, ill-informed, uneducated, dishonest and out and out vile crap you claim....
But then I wouldn't be a monsterous dishonest rampant repressed homosexual homophobic bigot. i worked damn hard for that title ye know!0 -
...and that a reasonable case can be made for certain sexual desires to be an issue physiologically and sociologically.
You have been repeatedly asked to detail this case for homosexuality over heterosexuality.
You repeatedly ignored the question as you can't make such a case. (Least not one that is objective and doesn't rely on personal bigotry.)0 -
I'm not allowed whinge now? Fascist bully boy!
What do you mean. You are MY victims Muwah ha ha ha ha ha.
But then I wouldn't be a monsterous dishonest rampant repressed homosexual homophobic bigot. i worked damn hard for that title ye know!
Again, either manic nonsense or dishonesty. Like a switch.0 -
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.
.
To those of us, who don't know what you're on about, what are you on about? You were asked a very simple question here, and you've avoided it.If your teenage son or daughter came out, would you encourage them to repress their homosexuality as you believe it to be inherently sinful?
Answer away to your heart's content. "Fire away!".0 -
Nope, Jimi, it's against the forum charter.I'm not allowed whinge now?
I'd be carding you for your truly dismal performance last night, but the hangover you must be enjoying now is probably enough -- let that be a warning to you, my dearest child, about posting while blind drunk!0 -
Nope, Jimi, it's against the forum charter.
I'd be carding you for your truly dismal performance last night, but the hangover you must be enjoying now is probably enough -- let that be a warning to you, my dearest child, about posting while blind drunk!
Warn away Robin, warn away. You don't need to do me any favours. You'll be pleased to know that all of that was done in sobriety:eek:. I was just playing with the silly folk.0 -
Psychological gender realignment is the modern day changing of lead into gold. It doesn't work, it has no basis in fact & has been banned in one US state this month already.
You have no interest in resolving the reasons why some people are not comfortable with their sexual orientation. You simply claim that it is an unrecognised disease or mental disorder and that it should be treated as such. How exactly do you expect posters to respond to you?
Nope. I said that a person who wishes to change should not be subjected to legal impediment or abuse, and that a reasonable case can be made for certain sexual desires to be an issue physiologically and sociologically. If such a person WANTS to try change it, then the therapies on offer should be looked at on merit and discredited where appropriate. A political stance should not impede on a persons choice to want to change. however, i aslo said that the fact that its only with minors in this case may not be a bad thing, though if my suspicion of political shenanigans are at work, then its a bad precedent.
As for responses, I expect posters to deal with the points and not to keep looking for opportunities to name call. Its like tourettes at this stage. "homophobe", "Bigot".0 -
I'm not familiar with the term you used, so I'll assume its another name for reparative therapy.Psychological gender realignment is the modern day changing of lead into gold. It doesn't work, it has no basis in fact & has been banned in one US state this month already.
There are those who have linked their sexual orientation to issues in their upbringing.
http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story
How do you reckon we deal with such testimony? Just put it down to lies or self delusion? Again, I really don't know if whatever any of the therapies are, actually work, but in my brief reading since the case in California came to light, it seems that the alleged science that says orientation is genetic is a dubious claim. Now thats not saying its a choice, but there are some who have allegedly traced it back to incidents or environments they were exposed to, and that dealing with these things has allegedly led them to change.0 -
Cohen claims that his homosexuality was result of sexual abuse as a child. That doesn't mean all homosexuals are so because they were abused by a child. He also got in trouble for citing a discredited study in his book "Coming Out Straight" that claimed homosexuals were more likely to abuse children than straight people.
The text in question (which Cohen said in 2010 will be removed from future publishings):Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; homosexual teachers are at least 7 times more likely to molest a pupil; homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.
SourceIf you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Or it could be entirely fictitious. Or it could be the guy misattributing the effects of the treatment. Or he's over exaggerating them. All common features of unproven and alternative medicine.http://www.comingoutloved.com/richard-cohens-story
How do you reckon we deal with such testimony? Just put it down to lies or self delusion?
None of those possibilities can be ruled out of an anecdote, hence they are not used in scientific or rational discussion, particularly about things that have a medical or psychological effect.
However they make great arguments from emotion and are much much better for making dishonest manipulative arguments when the science and facts aren't on your side.
Probably why you and the site you are using it.
And why are you getting all huffy about inferring or imply some random anonymous guy on the internet is being less than honest?
You're doing that all the time when you are rejecting the scientific consensus on these issues or when you are feigning skepticism.
So ignoring that none what you said is true, and assuming that sexual orientation is attributable to environmental factors and can be changed, why do you still think these quack treatments should be allowed when you claimed only to support them when they are curing something that needs to be cured.Now thats not saying its a choice, but there are some who have allegedly traced it back to incidents or environments they were exposed to, and that dealing with these things has allegedly led them to change.
Being homosexual does not make you more or less prone to psychological issue any more than being heterosexual. (Once you exclude the harm of bullying and religiously justified bigotry and the other stuff you and your ilk spread.)0 -
Advertisement
-
Jimi.
I am not sure if you have deliberately or inadvertently missed the point of the California legislation.
It deals only with minors. It is designed to protect minor from being coerced into undergoing dubious and often psychologically dangerous so called therapies designed to 'cure' them of what is not an illness or disease.
As minors they cannot themselves consent, unfortunately some parent's or guardians are so adverse to the idea of homosexuality that minors are being forced into such dubious therapies against their will or due to being told they are 'sick'.
Sometimes the civil authorities need to protect children from their parents or guardians - this is one such instance.
You may think being homosexual brings with it inherent 'issues' - but as you personally have no idea what it is like to be homosexual this is simply conjecture on your part.
Neither do you appear to be able to accept that where such issues around homosexuality exist - and they are by no means universal - they exist in the main not because of sexual orientation in and of itself but because some people insist on portraying homosexuality as 'abnormal', a 'curable illness' or just plain wrong.
Tell a child it is abnormal often enough and it will believe you.
Remove the stigma and many of the so-called 'issues' will disappear.
Such therapies as banned in California feed the stigma, feed the illusion that homosexuality is an illness and are, quite frankly, making money out of bigotry and hatred.
You became outraged because people call you a bigot and a homophobe, but seem to think it is perfectly OK to mention homosexuals and pedophiles in the same context and then protest at being judged. You scream that you are the victim of our insults.
Yet, I and other lesbian and Gay posters here experience being told that we have 'issues', that we can be 'cured', that it is perfectly ok to mention us in the same breathe as child abusers - we suffer the judgement of you and your ilk every single day. Ironic then that you are the one to play the victim card.
I have no issue with my sexual orientation, I never have. I am not alone. I do have an issue with people telling me I have issues and am 'curable' - you may not like what I am, to be honest I don't much like what you are - difference is, you are coming in here and telling me and my kind what is wrong with us and then become outraged when we tell you your ideas are wrong and your comments offensive.
Have you even once considered that when these minor reach the age of maturity they will be perfectly free to engage in any form of therapy they wish?0 -
-
The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about a Kevin Myers article about the supposed consequences of same sex marriage that was printed in the Irish Indo back in March.
In his article, Myers claimed as fact that:
-“the liberalisation of the laws against homosexual acts” had resulted in the “catastrophic reality” of “at least 250,000 deaths from AIDS”;
-“the record of every society shows that boys without a strong stable male figure in their lives are an express train heading for trouble”; and that
-Catholic adoption agencies have “closed rather than do something which they feel is immoral, which is to hand children over to homosexual couples”.
However, complaints made by MarriagEquality and BelongTo Youth Services under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines were upheld with the Ombudsman saying:...where a comment is reported as fact, as in the case of this complaint, a newspaper can reasonably be expected to provide, as part of its justification for publication, evidence of the factuality of the matters complained of. No such evidence was provided by the newspaper.
The Press Ombudsman’s opinion is that, in this case, the failure to distinguish adequately between fact and comment was sufficiently substantial to justify a decision that the article was in breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
The Code is a voluntary code and there are no penalties for breaches of the Code, except for a requirement to publish the findings of the Ombudsman. But still, it's good to see such ridiculous claims being challenged. The full Press Ombudsman's decision is here, and the Irish Indo's publication of the decision (nearly 2 months later) is here.0 -
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Jimi.
I am not sure if you have deliberately or inadvertently missed the point of the California legislation.
It deals only with minors. It is designed to protect minor from being coerced into undergoing dubious and often psychologically dangerous so called therapies designed to 'cure' them of what is not an illness or disease.
As minors they cannot themselves consent,
I'm actually looking for the science that shows the harm, and the particular therapies that it refers to (I'm looking at the APA report at the mo, but the studies I've tried to access thus far are blocked unless you subscribe etc). If it is shown that certain therapies are dangerous, I would not support it in a million years.unfortunately some parent's or guardians are so adverse to the idea of homosexuality that minors are being forced into such dubious therapies against their will or due to being told they are 'sick'.
And I've said from the start that I didn't agree with people being coerced into such things.Sometimes the civil authorities need to protect children from their parents or guardians - this is one such instance.
What about the argument that over 50 percent of new Aids cases in the US are homosexual men, and its estimated that 1 in 5 gay men in cities in the US are HIV positive. Thats around 3% of the population, contributing to over 50% of the AIDS cases. Seeing as how gay affirmation therapy is not an issue, could it not be said that this endangers the child as they have such an elevated chance of becoming HIV positive in later life? I mean, its a pretty big statistic if we are talking about the dangers for children.You may think being homosexual brings with it inherent 'issues' - but as you personally have no idea what it is like to be homosexual this is simply conjecture on your part.
Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I said a reasonable case can be made that sexualities outside of heterosexuality can have inherant issues from a physiological and sociological perspective. For example, a homosexual couple are inherently infertile etc.Neither do you appear to be able to accept that where such issues around homosexuality exist - and they are by no means universal - they exist in the main not because of sexual orientation in and of itself but because some people insist on portraying homosexuality as 'abnormal', a 'curable illness' or just plain wrong.
I never said that I didn't accept that such factors exist, or that they are plentiful. I said that it was irrelevant in light of people who want to change for other reasons.Tell a child it is abnormal often enough and it will believe you.
I don't see the need to get into sexuality with a child. Like that incident in the video Links243 posted, but bad parents exist. Or parents with good intentions, that make mistakes.Remove the stigma and many of the so-called 'issues' will disappear.
They'll still be in an infertile sexuality, and if they are Christian, they'll also be in a difficult place with regards the conflict between their desires and their God.You became outraged because people call you a bigot and a homophobe
Outraged? You must have me mixed up with someone else. Its simply a worthless contribution to KEEP telling me what you think I am., but seem to think it is perfectly OK to mention homosexuals and pedophiles in the same context and then protest at being judged.
Now, don't continue with this nonsense, you were doing so well. You told me that I equated you with a child abuser. THAT is the context you accused me of inducing. My protest is not at being 'judged'. Its the stupidity and wilful desire to paint me with things that are not actually true that I highlight.You scream that you are the victim of our insults.
No, I make fun of how stupid they are, and how worthless it is to keep on repeating them in light of my willingness to accept that you believe such things. My actual desire, would be to have a civil discourse without the needless outrage about points not made, and constantly having to deal with rabbit holes that seek to identify me as something, most already believe I am. Its the height of stupidity.Yet, I and other lesbian and Gay posters here experience being told that we have 'issues', that we can be 'cured', that it is perfectly ok to mention us in the same breathe as child abusers - we suffer the judgement of you and your ilk every single day. Ironic then that you are the one to play the victim card.
Two corrections. A person with an attraction to children is not a child abuser. A person who abuses a child is a child abuser. YOU mentioned child abuse, I never did. I also did not equate the actions that follow on from same sex attraction, to the actions that follow on from child attraction. Such equation would be a nonsense. I also did not say that YOU have "issues", but rather to tolerate others who feel that their same sex attraction is an issue TO THEM, and that a reasonable case can be made by them that deviations from heterosexuality can bring inherent issues. I mentioned the infertile scenario as one such issue. You may be offended by the fact that only a heterosexual couple may produce offspring together, or maybe its the fact that it has been raised as a possible reason that someone would feel that they want to change. Either way, I really don't see it reasonable, when you think about it, to take offence at it.I have no issue with my sexual orientation, I never have. I am not alone.
Good for you, and I don't dipute it. Not now, or ever have I.I do have an issue with people telling me I have issues and am 'curable' - you may not like what I am, to be honest I don't much like what you are - difference is, you are coming in here and telling me and my kind what is wrong with us and then become outraged when we tell you your ideas are wrong and your comments offensive.
The only thing I can say, is that if it so offends you, then stick me on ignore. All I can do is inform you that most of the offence you've taken is about views I don't hold. If you honestly believe what you attribute to me, then I'd certainly stick such a person on ignore. I mean, why the hell wouldn't you. What I would politely request, if you decide to continue to engage, is not to get personal, even if you feel the points being made have a personal impact. Maybe, if you can, take a different path in the conversation and look to educate me rather than expose me. At the end of the day, I think pretty much everyone on here believes as you do, so I don't think you actually NEED to expose me as you are amongst friends.Have you even once considered that when these minor reach the age of maturity they will be perfectly free to engage in any form of therapy they wish?
Yes. In fact, if wren't so busy being blinded by things I never said, you'd see that I didn't necesarily see the whole thing about these therapies not being available to minors as a bad thing. My issue is that minors aren't allowed access to this therapy, but rather the seeming political shenanigans at play in this outlawing. I can't fathom the fact that they give hormone blockers to kids approaching puberty if they identify themselves as a gender that is physiologically different to what they are etc.0 -
Silly folk? Grand - you've been carded for incivility. Any more nonsense will see you red-carded or banned.
Again, when faced with the goading stupidity I've been faced with, including from you with your jibe many pages ago about being a repressed homosexual, I'll respond as I see fit, and you can warn and ban as you see fit.0 -
I'm actually looking for the science that shows the harm, and the particular therapies that it refers to (I'm looking at the APA report at the mo, but the studies I've tried to access thus far are blocked unless you subscribe etc). If it is shown that certain therapies are dangerous, I would not support it in a million years.
And I've said from the start that I didn't agree with people being coerced into such things.
What about the argument that over 50 percent of new Aids cases in the US are homosexual men, and its estimated that 1 in 5 gay men in cities in the US are HIV positive. Thats around 3% of the population, contributing to over 50% of the AIDS cases. Seeing as how gay affirmation therapy is not an issue, could it not be said that this endangers the child as they have such an elevated chance of becoming HIV positive in later life? I mean, its a pretty big statistic if we are talking about the dangers for children.
Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I said a reasonable case can be made that sexualities outside of heterosexuality can have inherant issues from a physiological and sociological perspective. For example, a homosexual couple are inherently infertile etc.
I never said that I didn't accept that such factors exist, or that they are plentiful. I said that it was irrelevant in light of people who want to change for other reasons.
I don't see the need to get into sexuality with a child. Like that incident in the video Links243 posted, but bad parents exist. Or parents with good intentions, that make mistakes.
They'll still be in an infertile sexuality, and if they are Christian, they'll also be in a difficult place with regards the conflict between their desires and their God.
Outraged? You must have me mixed up with someone else. Its simply a worthless contribution to KEEP telling me what you think I am.
Now, don't continue with this nonsense, you were doing so well. You told me that I equated you with a child abuser. THAT is the context you accused me of inducing. My protest is not at being 'judged'. Its the stupidity and wilful desire to paint me with things that are not actually true that I highlight.
No, I make fun of how stupid they are, and how worthless it is to keep on repeating them in light of my willingness to accept that you believe such things. My actual desire, would be to have a civil discourse without the needless outrage about points not made, and constantly having to deal with rabbit holes that seek to identify me as something, most already believe I am. Its the height of stupidity.
Two corrections. A person with an attraction to children is not a child abuser. A person who abuses a child is a child abuser. YOU mentioned child abuse, I never did. I also did not equate the actions that follow on from same sex attraction, to the actions that follow on from child attraction. Such equation would be a nonsense. I also did not say that YOU have "issues", but rather to tolerate others who feel that their same sex attraction is an issue TO THEM, and that a reasonable case can be made by them that deviations from heterosexuality can bring inherent issues. I mentioned the infertile scenario as one such issue. You may be offended by the fact that only a heterosexual couple may produce offspring together, or maybe its the fact that it has been raised as a possible reason that someone would feel that they want to change. Either way, I really don't see it reasonable, when you think about it, to take offence at it.
Good for you, and I don't dipute it. Not now, or ever have I.
The only thing I can say, is that if it so offends you, then stick me on ignore. All I can do is inform you that most of the offence you've taken is about views I don't hold. If you honestly believe what you attribute to me, then I'd certainly stick such a person on ignore. I mean, why the hell wouldn't you. What I would politely request, if you decide to continue to engage, is not to get personal, even if you feel the points being made have a personal impact. Maybe, if you can, take a different path in the conversation and look to educate me rather than expose me. At the end of the day, I think pretty much everyone on here believes as you do, so I don't think you actually NEED to expose me as you are amongst friends.
Yes. In fact, if wren't so busy being blinded by things I never said, you'd see that I didn't necesarily see the whole thing about these therapies not being available to minors as a bad thing. My issue is that minors aren't allowed access to this therapy, but rather the seeming political shenanigans at play in this outlawing. I can't fathom the fact that they give hormone blockers to kids approaching puberty if they identify themselves as a gender that is physiologically different to what they are etc.
I was going to write a considered reply - then I read 'Now, don't continue with this nonsense, you were doing so well.' so I shan't bother.
My time will be better spent making rice crispie cakes with the grandkids.0 -
Then your position contradictory as then you must then support the idea of heterosexual people getting cure.Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I said a reasonable case can be made that sexualities outside of heterosexuality can have inherant issues from a physiological and sociological perspective. For example, a homosexual couple are inherently infertile etc.
Infertile people could be more comfortable being attracted to the same gender and therefore not have to worry about not being able to provide a child to a straight partner.
However, since you repeatedly dodged the question, you don't believe that heterosexual people should be cured, hence this point is completely dishonest and you know it.
And then we run into reality, where such infertility issues have much more reasonable solutions that do not rely on unproven, dangerous quack therapies. Adoption, IVF, surrogacy and even actual psychiatric therapy to deal with the issue can all address that "issue".
And then there's fact that the "sociological issues" are more than likely caused not by homosexuality itself, but ideas like you are spreading, such as homosexuality being somehow wrong or undesirable.
You're welcome to provide examples of these types of issues, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to.0 -
Jimi, A+A is a discussion forum which has a set of reasonably strictly-enforced rules designed to help discussions take place peacefully.Again, when faced with the goading stupidity I've been faced with, including from you with your jibe many pages ago about being a repressed homosexual, I'll respond as I see fit, and you can warn and ban as you see fit.
The forum is not a soapbox for certain people to parp their viewpoints endlessly -- whatever they happen to be -- especially where these viewpoints are carefully and definitively cut to shreds by other forum posters; and most especially, where the soapboxer seems to have failed to notice that their trousers and underpants are, discussion-wise, down around their ankles.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about a Kevin Myers article about the supposed consequences of same sex marriage that was printed in the Irish Indo back in March.
.....
In a very rare gesture, I will do the victory dance later. Please keep children and pets indoors, and pregnant women away from windows.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement