Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[Xayma]

Posting random stories collected from the net about homosexual people makes no useful contribution to the thread or arguments.

xkcd

 

[dagwoman]

I agree.

 

[Hero Of Time]

Posting random stories collected from the net about homosexual people makes no useful contribution to the thread or arguments.

xkcd

Pfft, an insight into the experiences of homosexuals can actually help people to stop being so pathetic with their homophobia.

 

[Adam1987]

I seriously have no idea why people are so offended by homosexuals and transsexuals. What did they do to you? Don't say they violated your Lords rules, because it's not up to you to do the judging, it's up to your God. Perhaps it's because some people feel that if they hang out with these type of people that others might start questioning their sexuality, someone should pose the question - Are you that insecure about your sexuality?

 

[KFunk]

Posting random stories collected from the net about homosexual people makes no useful contribution to the thread or arguments.

xkcd

I would have thought that personal stories have an important resonance in these debates... even the general cases posted by agentprovocater provide examples (and healthy reminders) of how the inequalities which are the subject of the debates/discussions in this thread can have negative effects on people's lives. E.g.

"I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room."

This provides an example of how unequal rights for long term gay couples can have damaging consequences. In any case, I can't understand your claim that something like an individual narrative makes no contribution to discussions in this thread. Making up the homosexual community is a large number of individuals, without whom the community would be nought. It is in the lives of these individuals that we can find the very social maladies which we should be trying to prevent by eliminating inequality based on sexuality.

 

[bshoc]

Actually, it's called a "liberal democracy". That is, the power of the majority should be tempered by civil liberties, such that minorities are not 'legally' oppressed. Soon, homosexuals will be given these civil liberties.

I certainly don't want my civil liberties, or, indeed my bedroom conduct to be decided by a majority of freedom-hating, moralising voters.

"Liberal democracy" is an oxymoron, and no we don't live in one.

 

[bshoc]

well said the last 4 posts.

this is along similar lines to what one_wit posted, but i thought i'de share it anyway...

A friend sent this..its sad..but true..

I am the boy who never finished high school, because I got called a fag everyday

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the woman who died when the EMTs stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I didnt have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don't believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

I am the person ashamed to tell my own friends im a lesbian, because they constantly make fun of them.

I am the boy tied to a fence, beaten to a bloody pulp and left to die because two straight men wanted to "teach me a lesson"

So a homosexual realized the perils of such a lifestyle after they decide to actively persue one?

If you're trying to show that all homosexuals are retards you're doing a good job.

 

[bshoc]

I seriously have no idea why people are so offended by homosexuals and transsexuals. What did they do to you? Don't say they violated your Lords rules, because it's not up to you to do the judging, it's up to your God. Perhaps it's because some people feel that if they hang out with these type of people that others might start questioning their sexuality, someone should pose the question - Are you that insecure about your sexuality?

Oh right so everybody is allowed to bring in their beliefs EXCEPT christians? Retard.

 

[dagwoman]

Yes, that's what gay people do, bshoc. We "decide to actively persue (sic) the homosexual lifestyle". If only we could just chose to actively pursue a heterosexual one, like you do.

 

[bshoc]

News flash, Democrats aren't far left, they're centre-left.

News flash, you're also centre-left, you protectionist fucktard.

News flash, the democrats ARE a far left party, look at their policies, in almost every instance they are left of the the Labour centre-left.

News flash, I don't support tarriffs or quotas, only subsidies and LCR's which are the policy of our current neo-liberal government.

 

[bshoc]

Yes, that's what gay people do, bshoc. We "decide to actively persue (sic) the homosexual lifestyle". If only we could just chose to actively pursue a heterosexual one, like you do.

Yes because all gays obviously lack the little bit of self control that is required to separate lifestyle from sexual urge?

No-one has proven that homosexuality isn't a choice either, so stop acting like its a presumed fact or something.

 

[dagwoman]

You're an idiot. Yes it is a presumed fact. I'll just quote the argument guide:

In many cases, appeals to ignorance can be made by people on either side of a dispute. For example: [/SIZE]

There is no evidence that aliens are living amongst us. Therefore, aliens are not living amongst us.

There is no evidence that super-disguised aliens are not living amongst us. Therefore, super-disguised aliens are living amongst us.

Which one of these arguments will win out? That depends on where we think the burden of proof lies. The person who argues for the more surprising, counter-intuitive claim carries the burden of proof. It is up to him/her to show that she has evidence for p being true.

Someone who produces a new medicine similarly bears the burden of proof, i.e. that person is obliged to show that the medicine is effective. It is not the case that we ought to believe that the new medicine is effective unless we have found evidence that it is ineffective.

When the proponent of an argument claims that it is not up to her to prove her conclusion, but up to her opponent to disprove it, the proponent is attempting to shift the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof may count as fallacious when the burden clearly cannot be shifted.

e.g. "I believe that I am the King of the world, and, unless you can prove that I am not, you are obliged to obey me!".

e.g. "I believe that you are an alien in very convincing disguise, and I should believe that unless you can prove to me you are not".

The question of where lies the burden of proof is often very difficult. Note that sometimes we explicitly adopt conventions about the burden of proof, e.g. By law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, in cricket we give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. What should we do in everyday life, and in science?

When it is not clear where the burden of proof lies, it might be best to withhold judgment, i.e. refuse to hold the belief that p and refuse to hold the belief that not p. This is probably best with the question of the existence of aliens somewhere else in the universe. In contrast, the burden of proof lies clearly with those who think that there are aliens amongst us, and they haven’t provided that evidence, so we ought not believe that aliens live amongst us.

In this case, you carry the burden of proof.

"The American Psychological Association takes the exact opposite view on homosexuality. In an APA statement on homosexuality by Bryant Welch, JD, Ph.D., he states, "The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity... Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice." Welch then continues to state that efforts to cure homosexuality are little more than "social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments". He continues that research now indicates that homosexual orientation begins very early in life, perhaps before birth. He further states that there should be no reason to discriminate against gays in the slightest way as they are every bit as productive and as much of an asset as any other member of society. "

 

[bshoc]

Too bad the decision to impliment laws isn't made at an ELECTION.

They are actually, ranked in terms of not only the laws to be implemented but also the order and importance in which they should be attempted to be implemented in.

 

[bshoc]

You're an idiot. Yes it is a presumed fact. I'll just quote the argument guide:

In this case, you carry the burden of proof.

"The American Psychological Association takes the exact opposite view on homosexuality. In an APA statement on homosexuality by Bryant Welch, JD, Ph.D., he states, "The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity... Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice." Welch then continues to state that efforts to cure homosexuality are little more than "social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments". He continues that research now indicates that homosexual orientation begins very early in life, perhaps before birth. He further states that there should be no reason to discriminate against gays in the slightest way as they are every bit as productive and as much of an asset as any other member of society. "

We've already had this argument if you remember, and we both posted psychology sources that indicated that homosexuality was a choice and it was not, thus neither case can be proven nor be used as assumed.

 

[dagwoman]

You quoted BS from NARTH. That's hardly a "psychology source".

 

[bshoc]

You actually believe what the Daily Show tells you? Common sense suggests that an election does not indicate the stance of the majority on any one particular issue; an election is a rather more complex phenomenon. You should also be aware that the survey to be found on Senator Stott Despoja's site is of people aged between 15 and 20, the majority of which are still too young to vote. The survey nonetheless epitomises what has similarly been indicated by a number of other surveys for this demographic, and it is also in synergy with the results of the poll attached to this thread.

No it epitomizes the fact that it was carried out by a far left political party, and the fact that a person of 15 years is likely to be politically left of the same person at 20 years.

 

[bshoc]

You quoted BS from NARTH. That's hardly a "psychology source".

It was more than just the one from NARTH if you bother to go back to those posts.

You don't find it the slightest bit curious that the man who first removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the largest association of American psychologists has continued his research, which has yielded some results which lets say, aren't the best for the gay agenda.

 

[dagwoman]

No, he was one of the people.

Here's just a little criticism of NARTH, which made up the vast majority of your "evidence":

"Theories of therapeutic methods for changing sexual bias are no longer endorsed by professional mental health organizations, such as the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers. Other health care associations have also condemned reparative therapy including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American School Health Association. Professional organizations of educators have also added their voice opposing this therapy, such as the American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association.

On 29 August 2006, the CNN reported a statement issued to them by the APA stating that "there is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." "

"Gay agenda"? I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

 

[bshoc]

I think you're confusing my arguments with something else, I never used NARTH as a source, I used the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and the Biometrics Research Dept. of the NY Psychiatric Institute

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rk67865783602411/?p=7699b78a6e834ff1886af0bb33b6a227&pi=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)

 

[mr EaZy]

Oh dear, not again! May I suggest that you try "Gays and Islam" for your next thread?

ahem, please dont!

PS: I'm going to do my best to run this off the rails, because threads like this NEVER die.

lol u were right there