The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

  • Thread starter Thread starter callmeChris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regular_Atheist said:
You give me a list and we’ll see if we agree. How about that?

The fact is anyone can be an expert on something, as long as they have the right qualifications. Someone who is a ‘Dr’ is certaintly going to be an expert in something. However, the idea that everyone who has certain qualifications is trustworthy is untrue, and some people have qualifications in different things.

Expert - A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.
Click to expand...
Regular,

In Court, the definition of an expert is one who has “Knowledge, Training, Experience” and renders an opinion based on afore said KTE.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Oh, sure, I’d agree. However, just because they have the nessecary degrees doesn’t mean you aren’t going to be bias or untrustworthy. 🤷 And the test you showed me regarding ex-gays seemed dodgy, as they’d only asked the men and not actually done anything else.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality and Hope - good stuff here - worth reading

Robert Spitzer, M.D., the renowned Columbia University psychiatric researcher, who was directly involved in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, has recently become involved with research the possibility of change. Dr. Spitzer stated in an interview: “I am convinced that many people have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s news… I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.” (Spitzer 2000).​

**2) Same sex attraction as a symptom **
Individuals experience same-sex attractions for different reasons. While there are similarities in the patterns of development, each individual has a unique, personal history. In the histories of persons who experience same-sex attraction, one frequently finds one or more of the following:
  • Alienation from the father in early childhood, because the father was perceived as hostile or distant, violent or alcoholic, (Apperson 1968: Bene 1965: Bieber 1962: Fisher 1996: Pillard 1988: Sipova 1983)
  • Mother was overprotective (boys), (Bieber, T. 1971: Bieber 1962: Snortum 1969)
  • Mother was needy and demanding (boys), (Fitzgibbons 1999)
  • Mother emotionally unavailable (girls), (Bradley 1997: Eisenbud 1982)
  • Parents failed to encourage same-sex identification, (Zucker 1995)
  • Lack of rough and tumble play (boys), (Friedman 1980: Hadden 1967a)
  • Failure to identify with same/sex peers, (Hockenberry 1987: Whitman 1977)
  • Dislike of team sports (boys), (Thompson 1973)
  • Lack of hand/eye coordination and resultant teasing by peers (boys), (Bailey 1993: Fitzgibbons 1999: Newman 1976)
  • Sexual abuse or rape, (Beitchman 1991: Bradley 1997: Engel 1981: Finkelhor 1984; Gundlach 1967)
  • Social phobia or extreme shyness, (Golwyn 1993)
  • Parental loss through death or divorce, (Zucker 1995)
  • Separation from parent during critical developmental stages. (Zucker 1995)
    Code: 
        In some cases, same-sex attraction or activity occurs in a patient with other psychological diagnosis, such as:
  • Major depression, (Fergusson 1999)
  • Suicidal ideation, (Herrell 1999),
  • Generalized anxiety disorder,
  • Substance abuse,
  • Conduct disorder in adolescents,
  • Borderline personality disorder, (Parris 1993: Zubenko 1987)
  • Schizophrenia, (Gonsiorek 1982)
  • Pathological narcissism. (Bychowski 1954: Kaplan 1967)
  • In a few cases, homosexual behavior appears later in life as a response to a trauma such as abortion, (Berger 1994: de Beauvoir 1953) or profound loneliness (Fitzgibbons 1999).
**3) Same-sex attraction is preventable **
If the emotional and developmental needs of each child are properly met by both family and peers, the development of same-sex attraction is very unlikely. Children need affection, praise and acceptance by each parent, by siblings and by peers. Such social and family situations, however, are not always easily established and the needs of children are not always readily identifiable. Some parents may be struggling with their own trials and be unable to provide the attention and support their children require. Sometimes parents work very hard but the particular personality of the child makes support and nurture more difficult. Some parents saw incipient signs, sought professional assistance and advice and were given inadequate and in some cases erroneous advice.
 
“Catholic Education Resource Center” Seriously? Okay, I’ll give it a go.

I don’t know whether I’m certain that, if this is the cause, it would nessecarily make it immoral, though. There’s also the fact that ex-gay therapy success rates seem low. I also know homosexuals that seem to have come from a perfectly normal family, and yet are still gay.

But, this also doesn’t make it a choice like you’ve claimed it is before.

EDIT: Loads of this seems to refer to religious beliefs, and is claiming that your god can stop people being gay. Eh… Hm.
 
I did some research on my own, and supposedly, Robert Spitzer is now retired. He also retracted any statements that ex-gay therapy may work, as he saw how the test he orginally agreed with was flawed. He said he “Owed the gay community an apology”.

In his own words:

exgaywatch.com/wp/2012/04/spitzer-i-owe-the-gay-community-an-apology/

It seems these ex-gay groups lie. They claim Spitzer still agrees with them, despite the fact he retracted his claims.
 
Debora123 said:
Are you saying that same sex attraction is a choice?

I disagree with this 100%.
Click to expand...
No - epigenetically the predisposition would be from prior lifestyle/behavioral choices made by their parents which of course come from the fact we have free will.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Another thing to note is that the “In God we Trust” was added later on in America’s history after fears of Communism, as Communism is very atheistic because belief in God does not support their political views. I’m suprised I know more about America’s history than you. I’m also not suprised people like you get treated badly by homosexuals, when you say what you say and do what you do.
Click to expand...
“In God We Trust” has been on coins since 1864.

treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
 
Research shows Homosexuals to mentally entertain 1000’s of sex partners in a given year and actualize 1000’s in their lives for it.

The young homosexual utubes get thousands upon thousands of adult male homosexual pedophiles gooning over them making preference comments on the page…adding solid evidence to this important research.
 
FurtherSuntime said:
Research shows Homosexuals to mentally entertain 1000’s of sex partners in a given year and actualize 1000’s in their lives for it.

The young homosexual utubes get thousands upon thousands of adult male homosexual pedophiles gooning over them making preference comments on the page…adding solid evidence to this important research.
Click to expand...
It’s not actually nessecarily true that all homosexuals are promiscous:

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth

I mean, it stands to reason that not all homosexuals would be promiscous, judging by the fact that many are in monogamous relationships, some are in Civil Unions and others want marriage.

This will sound really cruel, but when it comes to STDs, I don’t really have any sympathy for people who are promiscous. If you’re going to do that, then you really need to be prepared for the consequences. 🤷 Not that I don’t think they should get the nessecary medical treatment, but it is their own fault.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Really? Okay. My bad, I guess. 🤷
Click to expand...
Would it be right, do you think, to proffer Coptic Christian an apology for saying this:
Regular_Atheist said:
Another thing to note is that the “In God we Trust” was added later on in America’s history after fears of Communism, as Communism is very atheistic because belief in God does not support their political views.** I’m suprised I know more about America’s history than you. **I’m also not suprised people like you get treated badly by homosexuals, when you say what you say and do what you do.
Click to expand...
No need to be coy and act as if that wasn’t meant as an insult, 'kay?
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I’d imagine all homosexuals have different opinons on marriage, and many of them may well understand why you disagree with same-sex marriage. I’ve met some that claimed they don’t care about marriage.
Click to expand...
What are some other definitions/purposes of marriage provided by homosexuals?
 
Stephen168 said:
What are some other definitions/purposes of marriage provided by homosexuals?
Click to expand...
What I mean is I’ve met homosexuals who claimed they don’t care about marriage, or are happy with Civil Unions. I guess you could argue that, with all the other benefits marriage brings, it can’t really be considered just for children anymore. 🤷
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I did some research on my own, and supposedly, Robert Spitzer is now retired. He also retracted any statements that ex-gay therapy may work, as he saw how the test he orginally agreed with was flawed. He said he “Owed the gay community an apology”.

In his own words:

exgaywatch.com/wp/2012/04/spitzer-i-owe-the-gay-community-an-apology/

It seems these ex-gay groups lie. They claim Spitzer still agrees with them, despite the fact he retracted his claims.
Click to expand...
Spitzer’s retraction was all over the news.

Homosexuality and Hope was put out well before the retraction. It does not mean the rest of the references in the article therefore are not valid and each deserves it’s own scrutiny.

Spitzer’s “Retraction”: What Does It Really Mean?

*No new scientific finding has discredited the study. The same arguments originally made for or against it, still stand.

…*
Conclusion
A purely scientific approach to the limitations of Spitzer’s research would be to conduct more rigorous outcome research, something that he along with others have been calling for all along (Spitzer, 2003a, 2003b; Jones, Rosik, Williams, & Byrd, 2010). Even the APA Task Force’s Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (American Psychological Association, 2009) issued a call for such studies to be undertaken. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that the APA and other institutions in a position to fund and conduct outcome research on SOCE in conjunction with NARTH and other SOCE practitioners have no real interest in doing so. They have nothing to gain by such research, as outcomes unfavorable to SOCE would not meaningfully change their current skepticism, while outcomes favorable to SOCE would be a public relations and public policy disaster for them.
I doubt that Spitzer would “retract” his assessment of the likelihood that needed follow up studies would be conducted (Spitzer, 2003b):
Given the cost and complexity of such a study and the current view in the mental health professions of the benefits and risks of reorientation therapy, such a study is not going to happen in the near future. This is unfortunate because of the real questions raised, albeit admittedly not resolved, by this study (p. 472).
So instead of more and better research on SOCE, we find activists and their supporters in the media pouncing on a change of interpretation in an effort to preempt legitimate scientific debate. Nuance, context, and balanced analysis all be damned. What seems to be foremost is the use of Spitzer’s reassessment to bludgeon SOCE supporters into submission and silence. Is it really far-fetched to suspect science is being held hostage to political agendas here?
I sincerely hope that this brief analysis helps clarify what did and did not happen when Spitzer “retracted” his earlier study. No new scientific finding was discovered that discredited SOCE. No egregious methodological flaw was identified. The same arguments forwarded in favor or against the study a decade ago still stand. Legitimate debate about the study’s significance can and should still take place. Nothing has changed other than Spitzer has revised his earlier interpretation for what are likely to be a host of understandable but inherently non-scientific reasons. This is his right to do, but let no one tell you that in doing so he has discredited his research or alternative interpretations more favorable to those who report change in their same-sex attractions and behavior.
 
PRmerger said:
No need to be coy and act as if that wasn’t meant as an insult, 'kay?
Click to expand...
If it offended him, sure. I’m sorry. However, I was taught that it was true, and I’m not the only one who believes it. It’s just the spreading of misinformation. 🤷
 
buffalo said:
Spitzer’s retraction was all over the news.

Homosexuality and Hope was put out well before the retraction. It does not mean the rest of the references in the article therefore are not valid and each deserves it’s own scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it does mean Spitzer isn’t involved in these studies. I also have a problem with the link you gave me referring to your god as a cure for homosexuality. I just feel it discredits it. To me, it’s the same as them trying to claim that unicorns are the cure to cancer.

I’m probably going to be offline for a while, now. I’m guessing this may well be the end of our discussion on homosexuality, unless you have anything else to say. I’ll do some more research, and if I find anything significant I’ll get back to you. Anyway, see you. Take care, now.
 
Viviphilia said:
From a public health perspective, supporting public, monogamous relationships between homosexuals is clearly preferable to secrecy and promiscuity. It seems unfair to forbid gays from being public and monogamous and then turn around and complain about promiscuity and disease.
Click to expand...
Viviphilia said:
Obviously that much is true. But the social pressure of marriage adds an element of motivation to promote and keep the relationship monogamous, as the couple will experience public shame if any cheating occurs. By denying that pressure, and indeed, by denying the possibility of public relationships, homosexuals are forced to keep their relationships private and secret where there is no external social pressure to motivate monogamy.

This is not an accusation, it’s just speculation, but It’s almost as if some individuals want gays to be promiscuous and to spread disease.
Click to expand...
Riiight.

Gays even in committed relationships tend to be promiscuous on their own. In fact, Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret and that this gay couples study, Beyond Monogamy, Lessons from Long Term Male Couples in Non-Monogamous Relationships refute the false impression suggested in your posts.

The Gay Couples Study was done by gay researcher Blake Spears and Lanz Lowen who confirm that"Non-monogamous relationships are very common in the gay community."

"All of our couples by definition had agreement for some type of non-monogamy Our first interview questions explored how that came about As a starting point, we asked each partner to rate their inclination toward monogamy - when they first became a couple and currently Results are below:

• 36% were open from the beginning, with little change over time
• 12% were slightly open and increased their openness over time
• 42% of couples were initially monogamous and opened their relationship considerably over time
• 4% were initially monogamous and opened their relationship slightly
• 6% moved closer to monogamy and away from openness

We asked couples when they opened their relationships

• 42% made an agreement to be open within the first 3 months, and by the end of the first year, 49% of all study couples had opened their relationship
• The rest of the couples took from 1 year to 26 years to open their relationship – with the average being 6.6 years and the median 5 years
• 10% of couples opened their relationship between year 1 and year 5
• 17% of couples opened their relationship between year 5 and year 7
• 24% of couples opened their relationship after year 7"
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Sure, but it does mean Spitzer isn’t involved in these studies. I also have a problem with the link you gave me referring to your god as a cure for homosexuality. I just feel it discredits it. To me, it’s the same as them trying to claim that unicorns are the cure to cancer.

I’m probably going to be offline for a while, now. I’m guessing this may well be the end of our discussion on homosexuality, unless you have anything else to say. I’ll do some more research, and if I find anything significant I’ll get back to you. Anyway, see you. Take care, now.
Click to expand...
see you later…keep an open mind and always search for the truth. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top