gay - is it ok?

[jay_a2j]

What creeps me out on this issue is how incredibly easy it is to manipulate the sheeple in this country. 9 out of 10 people on this forum would do a complete about face within a week if they were told that they were politically incorrect in their present viewpoint.

Up until 1973, homosexuality was defined as a neurosis, caused in most observed cases by childhood trauma. This definition, according to the APA (American Psychiatric Association), was arrived at by reason of numerous experiments and case studies. Suddenly, in 1973, as a result of intensive lobbying by gays and lesbians, the APA does an inexplicable turnaround and says * * Gilda Radner voiceover * * "never mind". So according to our mental health experts, it is now no longer a neurosis, but a completely normal lifestyle. This change is not due to any new experiments that disproved the old ones, but is reclassification by fiat.

Next, we have a marked push by the media to have everyone accept the gay lifestyle as perfectly normal. TV shows, movies, commercials, editorials, etc. , all showing cute, sensitive John Ritter types getting bullied by ugly simians who belong to the KKK and look like Adolf Hitler, and everyone sucks it right up with the rest of their daily pap allotment. Queer becomes "gay", and all the sheeple march in step.

Finally, they give us a new word - the all encompassing "HOMOPHOBIC". Should you become the object of this terrible word, you will be classified as a "racist" and a "redneck", and you will be deemed by Oprah and Rosie - our modern day oracles - to be stoopit. We now have the huge "Gay Pride" parade in New York, and no one seems to notice that NAMBLA reps march along in it with a banner of their own.

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

Well said!

[Iz Man]

What creeps me out on this issue is how incredibly easy it is to manipulate the sheeple in this country. 9 out of 10 people on this forum would do a complete about face within a week if they were told that they were politically incorrect in their present viewpoint.

Up until 1973, homosexuality was defined as a neurosis, caused in most observed cases by childhood trauma. This definition, according to the APA (American Psychiatric Association), was arrived at by reason of numerous experiments and case studies. Suddenly, in 1973, as a result of intensive lobbying by gays and lesbians, the APA does an inexplicable turnaround and says * * Gilda Radner voiceover * * "never mind". So according to our mental health experts, it is now no longer a neurosis, but a completely normal lifestyle. This change is not due to any new experiments that disproved the old ones, but is reclassification by fiat.

Next, we have a marked push by the media to have everyone accept the gay lifestyle as perfectly normal. TV shows, movies, commercials, editorials, etc. , all showing cute, sensitive John Ritter types getting bullied by ugly simians who belong to the KKK and look like Adolf Hitler, and everyone sucks it right up with the rest of their daily pap allotment. Queer becomes "gay", and all the sheeple march in step.

Finally, they give us a new word - the all encompassing "HOMOPHOBIC". Should you become the object of this terrible word, you will be classified as a "racist" and a "redneck", and you will be deemed by Oprah and Rosie - our modern day oracles - to be stoopit. We now have the huge "Gay Pride" parade in New York, and no one seems to notice that NAMBLA reps march along in it with a banner of their own.

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

Thank you.
Well said B.K.

[unriggable]

Not really BK, two generations ago every sheeple hated gays.

[MR. Nate]

I seriously cannot understand why people feel as though homosexuality is so "wrong??" If any of you answer because of a book that's well over 1,500 years, i'll simply ignore you.

I love the way that you have made tolerance and diversity such a pillar in your life. Your unceasing efforts to understand opposing points of view are an inspiration to us all.

Bit like St. Paul, then?

Except without the examination of the topic, wit or intellect.

[Backglass]

Up until 1973, homosexuality was defined as a neurosis, caused in most observed cases by childhood trauma. This definition, according to the APA (American Psychiatric Association), was arrived at by reason of numerous experiments and case studies. Suddenly, in 1973, as a result of intensive lobbying by gays and lesbians, the APA does an inexplicable turnaround and says * * Gilda Radner voiceover * * "never mind". So according to our mental health experts, it is now no longer a neurosis, but a completely normal lifestyle. This change is not due to any new experiments that disproved the old ones, but is reclassification by fiat.

Not many years ago Autism was considered "Brain Damage" and kids were institutionalized for life. Then we began to understand it. The fact that you would rather listen to Doctors from 1973 as opposed to actual homosexuals is the problem here.

Next, we have a marked push by the media to have everyone accept the gay lifestyle as perfectly normal.

That's because it is...if your gay.

Queer becomes "gay", and all the sheeple march in step.

Actually gays refer to themselves as Queer and have no problem with the word. Feel free to use it.

Finally, they give us a new word - the all encompassing "HOMOPHOBIC".

It's not an all encompassing word at all, in fact it is very specific. Fear of homosexuals. It seems you fear them as well from your comments. Why are you so afraid? How does it hurt you in any way?

We now have the huge "Gay Pride" parade in New York, and no one seems to notice that NAMBLA reps march along in it with a banner of their own.

Ahhh so all gays are child molesters now? Talk about a broad brush...Gays also march in the St. Patricks day parade in New York so I guess that means all Irish are gay by your standards.

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated

Me too...but I am not gay. It also nauseates me that some people like their woman to piss on them or beat them with a whip. But I could care less.

[Guiscard]

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

Perhaps...just perhaps... we accept homosexuality not because of our unending desire to be politically correct but because we genuinely see nothing at all wrong with it.

If you want to believe we hold views contrary to your own because of political correctness rather than an opinion formulated of our own free will then feel free, but you've got no way of proving it.

And as a little added extra, I'm fairly sure that the APA removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list because of pioneering work from people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey, as well general mounting pressure from within the psychological field. The reason it is not, and should not, be classified as a mental disorder is because homosexuals can quite easily be entirely comfortable with themselves, function perfectly well in society, homosexuality poses no harmful effects to themselves or to those around them... i.e. their mental state is no different to that of a heterosexual bar sexual preference. Homosexuality in itself does not provide any adverse affects physically or mentally. It WAS due to new experiments and new research. Morality and psychology are a separate entity. If you think it is morally wrong thats fine, but it isn't a psychological disorder.

That given, your final few paragraphs are really only moral judgments. We get it. You don't like gays.

[b.k. barunt]

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

I'm fairly sure that the APA removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list because of pioneering work from people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey, as well general mounting pressure from within the psychological field. The reason it is not, and should not, be classified as a mental disorder is because homosexuals can quite easily be entirely comfortable with themselves, function perfectly well in society, homosexuality poses no harmful effects to themselves or to those around them... i.e. their mental state is no different to that of a heterosexual bar sexual preference. Homosexuality in itself does not provide any adverse affects physically or mentally. It WAS due to new experiments and new research.

That given, your final few paragraphs are really only moral judgments. We get it. You don't like gays.

While studying for my degree in social work, 1997-2002, i was told by my social work professors that it had been "proven" that homosexuality was biologically based. They cited a "gay twins" experiment, and an experiment where the hypothalamus of the brain was larger in gays than in straights. Upon researching this, i found that the gay twins exp. was NEVER repicated (doesn't an experiment have to be replicated a number of times before being taken seriously?), and the guy responsible for the "gay brain" experiment was indicted for fraud - i have the details if you'd like elaboration on that. My point is that here was more propaganda - teachers teaching as fact something that was not. I wrote an editorial that was published by the school newspaper, and the head of the social work dept. told me he would "talk to these teachers". 3 years later, these 2 experiments were still being cited as "proof" by these same teachers.
Kinsey's "pioneering" work, which i also studied, is taken about as seriously as the Piltdown Man by straight and gay scholars alike at this time, but maybe your googling didn't tell you that. So if the 1973 change "WAS" due to new experiments, as you say, that were properly replicated, maybe you could google some up for us - make sure you add "replicated" to your google search.

Considering that one of your 2 "pioneering" sources is laughable (i'm not familiar with Evelyn) i would say that it's possible that you are presenting us with your own moral judgements. We get it. You like gays.

[hecter]

Whothefuck cares whether or not is biological or psychological? The fact of the matter is, that's the way they are, they didn't choose to be that way, and they're not going to change or go away.

[Guiscard]

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

I'm fairly sure that the APA removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list because of pioneering work from people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey, as well general mounting pressure from within the psychological field. The reason it is not, and should not, be classified as a mental disorder is because homosexuals can quite easily be entirely comfortable with themselves, function perfectly well in society, homosexuality poses no harmful effects to themselves or to those around them... i.e. their mental state is no different to that of a heterosexual bar sexual preference. Homosexuality in itself does not provide any adverse affects physically or mentally. It WAS due to new experiments and new research.

That given, your final few paragraphs are really only moral judgments. We get it. You don't like gays.

While studying for my degree in social work, 1997-2002, i was told by my social work professors that it had been "proven" that homosexuality was biologically based. They cited a "gay twins" experiment, and an experiment where the hypothalamus of the brain was larger in gays than in straights. Upon researching this, i found that the gay twins exp. was NEVER repicated (doesn't an experiment have to be replicated a number of times before being taken seriously?), and the guy responsible for the "gay brain" experiment was indicted for fraud - i have the details if you'd like elaboration on that. My point is that here was more propaganda - teachers teaching as fact something that was not. I wrote an editorial that was published by the school newspaper, and the head of the social work dept. told me he would "talk to these teachers". 3 years later, these 2 experiments were still being cited as "proof" by these same teachers.
Kinsey's "pioneering" work, which i also studied, is taken about as seriously as the Piltdown Man by straight and gay scholars alike at this time, but maybe your googling didn't tell you that. So if the 1973 change "WAS" due to new experiments, as you say, that were properly replicated, maybe you could google some up for us - make sure you add "replicated" to your google search.

Considering that one of your 2 "pioneering" sources is laughable (i'm not familiar with Evelyn) i would say that it's possible that you are presenting us with your own moral judgements. We get it. You like gays.

A quick google gives us replication of Hooker's experiment by N Thompson, B McCandless, & B Strickland, who actually widened the study to include females (whereas the original study had only included men). All come to the same conclusion. There are hundreds of other references.

All I'm trying to show is that it is impossible for you to state that you believe the 'turnaround' from neurosis was based solely on political correctness... That is simply ridiculous.

[Guiscard]

Whothefuck cares whether or not is biological or psychological? The fact of the matter is, that's the way they are, they didn't choose to be that way, and they're not going to change or go away.

If its classified as a psychological disease then that has fairly profound implications, primarily for the equal rights legislation in place today. It also means psychologists would advocate attempting to 'cure' homosexuals by turning them straight.

Psychological is different to neurosis. We're arguing over the neurosis definition (which, interestingly, is still in use by the US armed forces, apparently).

[MR. Nate]

Whothefuck cares whether or not is biological or psychological? The fact of the matter is, that's the way they are, they didn't choose to be that way, and they're not going to change or go away.

It's important because if it's biological, it simply is, through no fault of anyone's. If it is psychological, if it's aberrant behavior with preventable causes, than there needs to be treatment to help them overcome it.

[unriggable]

Umm, BK, the experiment doesn't need to be replicated to be proven correct. There are countless experiments that have yet to be done again, yet they are for the most part accurate. Remember, no experiments have been done to suggest otherwise.

[hecter]

Whothefuck cares whether or not is biological or psychological? The fact of the matter is, that's the way they are, they didn't choose to be that way, and they're not going to change or go away.

If its classified as a psychological disease then that has fairly profound implications, primarily for the equal rights legislation in place today. It also means psychologists would advocate attempting to 'cure' homosexuals by turning them straight.

Psychological is different to neurosis. We're arguing over the neurosis definition (which, interestingly, is still in use by the US armed forces, apparently).

Ah, I understand. Thanks for explaining.

[unriggable]

Whothefuck cares whether or not is biological or psychological? The fact of the matter is, that's the way they are, they didn't choose to be that way, and they're not going to change or go away.

It's important because if it's biological, it simply is, through no fault of anyone's. If it is psychological, if it's aberrant behavior with preventable causes, than there needs to be treatment to help them overcome it.

What if they want to be gay?

[Guiscard]

Umm, BK, the experiment doesn't need to be replicated to be proven correct. There are countless experiments that have yet to be done again, yet they are for the most part accurate. Remember, no experiments have been done to suggest otherwise.

Err... be careful with that one... They do indeed need replication really... Kinsey was shaky ground apparently (after further googling), although there are plenty of people who have both defended and refined his work to 'clean' the abhorrent data.

[unriggable]

Umm, BK, the experiment doesn't need to be replicated to be proven correct. There are countless experiments that have yet to be done again, yet they are for the most part accurate. Remember, no experiments have been done to suggest otherwise.

Err... be careful with that one... They do indeed need replication really... Kinsey was shaky ground apparently (after further googling), although there are plenty of people who have both defended and refined his work to 'clean' the abhorrent data.

Oh. Normally scientists aren't that corrupt, I guess I should be a bit more skeptical next time.

[b.k. barunt]

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

I'm fairly sure that the APA removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list because of pioneering work from people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey, as well general mounting pressure from within the psychological field. The reason it is not, and should not, be classified as a mental disorder is because homosexuals can quite easily be entirely comfortable with themselves, function perfectly well in society, homosexuality poses no harmful effects to themselves or to those around them... i.e. their mental state is no different to that of a heterosexual bar sexual preference. Homosexuality in itself does not provide any adverse affects physically or mentally. It WAS due to new experiments and new research.

That given, your final few paragraphs are really only moral judgments. We get it. You don't like gays.

While studying for my degree in social work, 1997-2002, i was told by my social work professors that it had been "proven" that homosexuality was biologically based. They cited a "gay twins" experiment, and an experiment where the hypothalamus of the brain was larger in gays than in straights. Upon researching this, i found that the gay twins exp. was NEVER repicated (doesn't an experiment have to be replicated a number of times before being taken seriously?), and the guy responsible for the "gay brain" experiment was indicted for fraud - i have the details if you'd like elaboration on that. My point is that here was more propaganda - teachers teaching as fact something that was not. I wrote an editorial that was published by the school newspaper, and the head of the social work dept. told me he would "talk to these teachers". 3 years later, these 2 experiments were still being cited as "proof" by these same teachers.
Kinsey's "pioneering" work, which i also studied, is taken about as seriously as the Piltdown Man by straight and gay scholars alike at this time, but maybe your googling didn't tell you that. So if the 1973 change "WAS" due to new experiments, as you say, that were properly replicated, maybe you could google some up for us - make sure you add "replicated" to your google search.

Considering that one of your 2 "pioneering" sources is laughable (i'm not familiar with Evelyn) i would say that it's possible that you are presenting us with your own moral judgements. We get it. You like gays.

A quick google gives us replication of Hooker's experiment by N Thompson, B McCandless, & B Strickland, who actually widened the study to include females (whereas the original study had only included men). All come to the same conclusion. There are hundreds of other references.

All I'm trying to show is that it is impossible for you to state that you believe the 'turnaround' from neurosis was based solely on political correctness... That is simply ridiculous.

Great! You got the replication, now if you could just let me know which experiment you're talking about. If you're talking about the "Gay Twins" experiment, it hadn't yet been replicated in 1999 - hell the experiment itself wasn't done until more than 20 years after the 1973 turnaround, so why are you using it in reference to that?! You were hoping everyone would miss that? In 1973, no significant experiments had been done to overturn the mass of existing scientific evidence. The classification was changed as a result of political pressure - science was overuled by politics.

[Guiscard]

Personally, the thought of a man lusting after the hairy ass of another man makes me nauseated, but not half as nauseated as watching all the cow eyed sheeple bending over backwards to be politically correct. Oh well, life among the droids.

I'm fairly sure that the APA removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list because of pioneering work from people like Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey, as well general mounting pressure from within the psychological field. The reason it is not, and should not, be classified as a mental disorder is because homosexuals can quite easily be entirely comfortable with themselves, function perfectly well in society, homosexuality poses no harmful effects to themselves or to those around them... i.e. their mental state is no different to that of a heterosexual bar sexual preference. Homosexuality in itself does not provide any adverse affects physically or mentally. It WAS due to new experiments and new research.

That given, your final few paragraphs are really only moral judgments. We get it. You don't like gays.

While studying for my degree in social work, 1997-2002, i was told by my social work professors that it had been "proven" that homosexuality was biologically based. They cited a "gay twins" experiment, and an experiment where the hypothalamus of the brain was larger in gays than in straights. Upon researching this, i found that the gay twins exp. was NEVER repicated (doesn't an experiment have to be replicated a number of times before being taken seriously?), and the guy responsible for the "gay brain" experiment was indicted for fraud - i have the details if you'd like elaboration on that. My point is that here was more propaganda - teachers teaching as fact something that was not. I wrote an editorial that was published by the school newspaper, and the head of the social work dept. told me he would "talk to these teachers". 3 years later, these 2 experiments were still being cited as "proof" by these same teachers.
Kinsey's "pioneering" work, which i also studied, is taken about as seriously as the Piltdown Man by straight and gay scholars alike at this time, but maybe your googling didn't tell you that. So if the 1973 change "WAS" due to new experiments, as you say, that were properly replicated, maybe you could google some up for us - make sure you add "replicated" to your google search.

Considering that one of your 2 "pioneering" sources is laughable (i'm not familiar with Evelyn) i would say that it's possible that you are presenting us with your own moral judgements. We get it. You like gays.

A quick google gives us replication of Hooker's experiment by N Thompson, B McCandless, & B Strickland, who actually widened the study to include females (whereas the original study had only included men). All come to the same conclusion. There are hundreds of other references.

All I'm trying to show is that it is impossible for you to state that you believe the 'turnaround' from neurosis was based solely on political correctness... That is simply ridiculous.

Great! You got the replication, now if you could just let me know which experiment you're talking about. If you're talking about the "Gay Twins" experiment, it hadn't yet been replicated in 1999 - hell the experiment itself wasn't done until more than 20 years after the 1973 turnaround, so why are you using it in reference to that?! You were hoping everyone would miss that? In 1973, no significant experiments had been done to overturn the mass of existing scientific evidence. The classification was changed as a result of political pressure - science was overuled by politics.

Ok. Re-read my post. I've emboldened a little hint.

[suggs]

I seriously cannot understand why people feel as though homosexuality is so "wrong??" If any of you answer because of a book that's well over 1,500 years, i'll simply ignore you.

I love the way that you have made tolerance and diversity such a pillar in your life. Your unceasing efforts to understand opposing points of view are an inspiration to us all.

Bit like St. Paul, then?

Except without the examination of the topic, wit or intellect.

St. Paul has to rank as one of the least intelligent and most intolerant pricks ever to walk this fine planet.

[unriggable]

I seriously cannot understand why people feel as though homosexuality is so "wrong??" If any of you answer because of a book that's well over 1,500 years, i'll simply ignore you.

I love the way that you have made tolerance and diversity such a pillar in your life. Your unceasing efforts to understand opposing points of view are an inspiration to us all.

Bit like St. Paul, then?

Except without the examination of the topic, wit or intellect.

St. Paul has to rank as one of the least intelligent and most intolerant pricks ever to walk this fine planet.

Reincarnated as xtratabasco. Making us believe bullshit.

[suggs]

B.K, what the blazes is "wrong" with a man lusting after another man?
Didnt realise you were the over sensitive type.

And the stuff about child neuroses sounds suspiciously like Freudian garbage-so nice one that its been binned.

All totally natural and healthy.
No wonder we're still stuck on earth when being gay is still considered a topic up for discussion-christ, come on people its time for mankind to press on and to make some PROGRESS.

[unriggable]

Suggs, he lives in the online flame forum, not the real one.

[b.k. barunt]

I love suggs, gay or straight. He has his views i have mine, and we're still buds. That avatar does creep me out though, but then, you all know what a sensitive guy i am.


Honibaz

[Genghis Khan CA]

St. Paul has to rank as one of the least intelligent and most intolerant pricks ever to walk this fine planet.

Coming from suggs this is a compliment

[Beastly]

I find it Ironic, that the vote was only for straight males....

I also find it Ironic, that if someone doesn't agree with it, they are bigots.

What about bigotry of people who are don't agree with homosexuality.

People aren't allowed to disagree with someone else's lifestyle? or else they are a bad person or a bigot or so on and so forth? I don't think there is anything wrong with someone if they don't like homosexuality. I do believe it is wrong to discriminate against gays, or hate crimes. But it is equally wrong to discriminate against someone for not agreeing with you.

Calling someone a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle is just as bad as putting someone down because you don't agree with the way they choose to live.