Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[gerhard]

I'm only expressing my views and if they happen to be similar with that of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so be it.

but you view is wrong. its equivalent to saying the earth is flat im just expressing my views. its not flat.

 

[_dhj_]

but you view is wrong. its equivalent to saying the earth is flat im just expressing my views. its not flat.

What exactly is wrong? Most people are born with some sort of "disease", whether it's asthma, epilepsy, allerges. It means some part of their lifestyle bears an abnormality in that they cannot fulfill a function or carry out an action in an ordinary way - they may still be able to do so with difficulty and assistance (homosexuals can still reproduce with the help of science). I don't see why we need to gloss political correctness over that.

 

[dieburndie]

Who the fuck do you think you are?

Calmdowntherebuddy, I was joking.
Your underlying bshoc is frustrating you.

 

[_dhj_]

I don't like your attitude kid.

 

[crazyhomo]

It would cost alot of taxpayer money to police hetrosexual marriage, it costs nothing to keep gays out.

Plus the idea of gays marrying is a leftist fad, I support letting any straight people marry and not gays, because I'm a conservative.

by this logic, we should legalise all drugs because it is expensive to enforce

and how expensive is it to make sure a married couple has submitted a birth certificate within the first year of marriage?

since you just stated you are for straight couples marrying, even if they do not have any children, can you explain why you are against gays marrying? what is the difference between straight and gay couples now that children have been taken out of the equation?

 

[ssheppard]

I find that as a person I am for homosexuality, two men or two women have just as much right to be together as a man and a woman, but as a christian I cannot be all for practising homosexuality.

 

[dagwoman]

"top US psychologists" bshoc, you're full of shit.

“Various professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have stated that a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed by reparative therapy. 1,2
The one exception is the very small group: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH was founded in 1992 as a "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality." It currently consists of "more than 1,000 mental-health professionals." -- fewer than 1% of the therapists who belong to either of the APA's. 3,4 NARTH strongly advocates the use of reparative therapy, believing it to be very effective and safe. They regard homosexual behavior as a treatable disorder.”

“For their annual conference in 2000-MAY, the American Psychiatric Association had scheduled a panel discussion to debate whether there is any hard evidence that an adult's sexual orientation can be altered through reparative therapy. Dr. Robert Spitzer was scheduled to be the moderator. Two psychiatrists withdrew from the panel, stating that the topic is too politically charged to permit scientific discussion. The debate was then cancelled. According to the APA: "The doctors who were to debate on the topic decided there was not enough scientific information to have a proper debate. They felt that any debate would turn into a political debate and not a true scientific debate. While there is information on reorientation therapy, there have been no controlled research studies."”
“Before the scheduled debate, Dr. Spitzer had decided to conduct a study of "ex-gays" and "ex-lesbians," These are individuals who:

Had once identified themselves as homosexuals.

Had attempted to change their sexual orientation by:

either engaging in reparative therapy with a therapist, or


through spiritual counseling from a conservative Christian transformational ministry.

Now consider themselves to be heterosexual. Almost all are Evangelical Christians.”

Secondly, if we're going to talk about the safety of ART (assisted reproductive therapies), artificial insemination has a much lower chance of causing mutations that IVF, so don't bother implying that it's somehow heaps safer for straight couples to undergo IVF than it is for gay people to do AI.

Homosexuality is not a "disease". A disease, by definition, is any condition which impairs the normal functioning of the body. Homosexuality does not in any way do this.

ssheppard, maybe as a Christian you should be questioning the bigoted views of your religion and think about what you really believe. I think that if there were to be a god, they wouldn't mind if someone was gay or straight. After all, the belief is that god made everyone. Why would god make a person gay if it was a bad thing?

 

[gerhard]

What exactly is wrong? Most people are born with some sort of "disease", whether it's asthma, epilepsy, allerges. It means some part of their lifestyle bears an abnormality in that they cannot fulfill a function or carry out an action in an ordinary way - they may still be able to do so with difficulty and assistance (homosexuals can still reproduce with the help of science). I don't see why we need to gloss political correctness over that.

Your definition of a disease is subjective at best and laughable at worst. A mental disease is not something that negatively effects you. It is more than that. If that is all a disease is then I guess Ive got the laziness disease because I cant be fucked studying for my exams. Ive probably got the 'gets self righteous at internet people' disease as well.

A scientific quantification of your idea is that a mental disease has to have correlates with other mental diseases. Homosexuality does not have this. Therefore it is not a mental disease. Simple as that.

Its embarassing the amount of times I have to post this.

 

[_dhj_]

Laziness is very much a matter of degree. You don't either "have it" or not. It's also something that can be changed by your will without external intervention.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Homosexuality may be some sort of 'abnormality' in people's genes or whatever but I imagine the same sort of abnormalities can be find for a whole host of different attractions/fetishes that people may have. IMO You should only call it a disease when you feel it needs to be cured for the good of the person, I see little reason why homosexuality should fall into this category.

Wikipedia's definition seems to agree with me:

A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.

 

[_dhj_]

I don't disagree with that definition, but let's face it - reproduction is a significant aspect of people's lives.

The discomfort, dysfunction, distress lie in the fact that without scientific intervention, homosexuals can only reproduce through acts that may be discomforting or distressing. Even with scientific intervention, the child of a homosexual cannot take on the genes of the homosexual and his or her significant other.

 

[_dhj_]

Yes whether homosexuality is a disease and whether homosexuals should be granted marriage are two separate and unrelated questions.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The discomfort, dysfunction, distress lie in the fact that without scientific intervention, homosexuals can only reproduce through acts that may be discomforting or distressing.

I don't really hear too many homosexuals complaining. Some may wish they are not homosexual sometimes, however as far as I can ascertain the majority like being homosexuals.

 

[dagwoman]

And the only reason someone would (at times) wish they weren't gay is because of the views of others anyway.

 

[skip89]

Science is used to suppress if not cure symptoms of disease. Either way, going off that principle, if you have a rash you don't scratch it.

 

[dagwoman]

^ Uhh, what's your point?

I think the whole discussion has kind of lost focus. We've debated gay marriage, parenting etc to varying degrees of success, but I think that overall we've got a long way to go.

 

[skip89]

agreed

 

[bshoc]

"top US psychologists" bshoc, you're full of shit.

... Dr. Robert Spitzer was scheduled to be the moderator ...

You make this too easy, really, read your own hurridly googled cut and pastes

 

[bshoc]

Stop defending yourself, what you did was wrong.

but you view is wrong. its equivalent to saying the earth is flat im just expressing my views. its not flat.

Apparently original political opinion doesent sit well in the far left, and you'd think the fundie christians want to force their morals on everyone, they're not even close to morons like these.

You reds really need to come out from under the bed and realize that your form of bs isn't going to fly with anyone right of the far left.

 

[gerhard]

this isnt about politics bshoc, its about science. thats the point. you cant argue with scientifically established views and back it up by saying thats my opinion. just like you cant argue with the scientifically established view that the earth is not flat and argue that 'its my opinion'.