Incest

[MeDeFe]

I here Coke Light is great for preventing pregnancy, just insert vaginally after intercourse. 99.9% success rate, or so I hear.

I hear that people will believe anything they are told.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/sperm.asp

Oh come on, can't I spread an urban myth every now and then? And anyway, the stuff tastes bad enough to kill practically anything, so why not a few million sperm cells, too?

[Jenos Ridan]

My teacher, if you're worried about the accuracy don't be. Even if it did turn out to be false (although I don't think it is) it's still funny.

However I still doubt the undeniable connection between playing GTA for 3 hours and going out and killing cops. However i feel the majority of the blame rests with the gaurdians after all the media is there to entertain, not to raise children.

Children make such good test subjects because they don't already have all that in built conditioning telling them that violence is wrong. Obviously playing GTA won't be the only reason somebody commits murder, but it does have an undeniable effect, which is my point.

Music doesn't have an effect.
Video games don't have an effect.
Movies, again, are a non-sequeter.

And if they did, some of my closest friends and to an extent, even I, would be on death row now.

So, who is responcable? The Parents.

Bad parents are entirely to blame for the actions of their children, after the school for not reconizing and informing the adults of the situation and, in the event of bad parents, dealing with it.

Any other conclusion is faulty logic.

[chewyman]

But that is the massive assumption at the centre of your argument - that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Consider that the LBG community's agenda in terms of their 'illness' is not to raise awareness, or funds for a cure, but to foster acceptance of their lifestyles. They don't sound very ill. What is mental illness, anyway? How can a preference for partners of the same sex - a preference that doesn't harm anyone (apart perhaps from emotionally, like any relationship), isn't catching, life-shortening or debilitating be an illness? how WOULD you define illness? Anal sex is risky - but so is vaginal sex, riding a bike, crossing the road... taking risks does not mean soneone is ill. So anyway yeah - what do you mean by illness?

I described my reasoning for homosexuality being a mental illness in my first couple of posts on the issue. The definition of mental illness that I am using is an unnatural (based on the definition in my last post) function of the brain, in this case an attraction to the same sex. You're right that everything has its risks, but that doesn't mean you should go skydiving without a backup parachute just because you could be killed in a car crash tomorrow. The risks associated with sodomy are far, far greater than that of vaginal intercourse and are not solely STI related.

Usually, when someone makes some ridiculous assertion to back up some point or other, the onus is on them to prove it. Unfortunately, I don't have the time myself, so what I've done instead is, I've made your little factoid my signature. Perhaps someone will pick up on it and provide us with a credible reference.

Oh, I agree. I've already provided my source, which I acknowledge isn't particularly reliable. I'm starting to think that it may not be true, since it wasn't mentioned in the fellatio link provided above. However, apparently drinking semen reduces the chances of pre-eclampsia, which is also pretty cool.

Music doesn't have an effect.
Video games don't have an effect.
Movies, again, are a non-sequeter.

And if they did, some of my closest friends and to an extent, even I, would be on death row now.

So, who is responcable? The Parents.

Bad parents are entirely to blame for the actions of their children, after the school for not reconizing and informing the adults of the situation and, in the event of bad parents, dealing with it.

Any other conclusion is faulty logic.

Actually, faulty logic would be to say:
- I listen to music
- I've never killed anyone
- Therefore music never has an impact on killers

Your two premises in no way support your conclusion, which goes from something very personal to affecting the whole wider community. Look, I'm not trying to say that music and games are responsible for motivating murderers. The point that I am making is that there is an undeniable desensitising effect from these forms of violent media. Unfortunately this issue is also becoming politically incorrect to discuss on the internet. People that feel very strongly about it are willing to completely disregard all the proof from psychological experiments that says otherwise. What is your response to the bobo doll experiment, since you didn't refer to it at all and just gave the response I hear almost every time the issue is brought up?

[Hitman079]

i think incest is fine, in that article's case since Patrick was adopted...they're not blood-related..
as for the video game bullshit thing, i think it is partly true. although it is not entirely the reason someone goes out and goes on a rampage with some kind of weapon, i believe it does implant some ideas. after playing shooting games for many years, i am inclined to think of humans as relatively easy to kill, and rampages and stuff easy to pull off (after hearing about massacres at school and stuff). i've always believed i could win a police shootout. not that i'd try, you know.

[reverend_kyle]

i think incest is fine, in that article's case since Patrick was adopted...they're not blood-related..
as for the video game bullshit thing, i think it is partly true. although it is not entirely the reason someone goes out and goes on a rampage with some kind of weapon, i believe it does implant some ideas. after playing shooting games for many years, i am inclined to think of humans as relatively easy to kill, and rampages and stuff easy to pull off (after hearing about massacres at school and stuff). i've always believed i could win a police shootout. not that i'd try, you know.

you might want to remove the comma there.

so it doesnt come off as

I think incest is fine


especially in that articles case.


also they are blood related, he was adopted by a different family. He found his wife after seeking out his blood family.

[Anarchist]

I agree with chewyman, aslong as violence be considered a mental illness aswell. Violence is something that needs to be cured far more then homosexuality.

[Jenos Ridan]

I already adressed the issue of incest. I'm against it, but I can see how it might not matter in some cases, as stated in the OP, for example. Not a how lot I can do to stop people from loving each other, now can I?

Almost everything in life is a choice, and somethings are the unfortunate result of someone else's complete and utter stupidity.

[Master Bush]

I'm in favor of what ever this thread topic is about.

[reverend_kyle]

you heard the man. Its good.

[Master Bush]

WORD!

[reverend_kyle]

WORD!

[heavycola]

I described my reasoning for homosexuality being a mental illness in my first couple of posts on the issue. The definition of mental illness that I am using is an unnatural (based on the definition in my last post) function of the brain, in this case an attraction to the same sex. You're right that everything has its risks, but that doesn't mean you should go skydiving without a backup parachute just because you could be killed in a car crash tomorrow. The risks associated with sodomy are far, far greater than that of vaginal intercourse and are not solely STI related.

Well sure we can agree that mental illnesses are natural and therefore so is homosexuality. I was just using a different definition of 'natural'; basically that a healthy person is a natural person. I would rather a friend with schizophrenia be cured despite however natural it may be, and the same goes for my homosexual friends. Humans and other animals share a wide variety of mental illnesses, that doesn't make them any less unnatural (based on my definition)

unhealthiness = unnatural? Illness = unnatural? Come on man, that's weak.
Look - if homosexuality is an illness, i think we can all agree that one of its common symptoms would be for the sufferer to feel pride in his/her condition perhaps, to march in support of it etc. But why would non-gay doctors ignore this illness because one symptom made it an uncomfortable subject? You think a politically-correct movement about syphilis would stop doctors treating it?

Just because you have decided that it is unnatural to be unhealthy does not make it so. Campaigning against people shagging each other in the arse because you think it is too risky is another thing altogether, but i get the feeling that's not the real issue here.

[chewyman]

I agree with chewyman, aslong as violence be considered a mental illness aswell. Violence is something that needs to be cured far more then homosexuality.

I completely agree with you. The thing is, we can do both at the same time, it's not a one or the other situation.

unhealthiness = unnatural? Illness = unnatural? Come on man, that's weak.
Look - if homosexuality is an illness, i think we can all agree that one of its common symptoms would be for the sufferer to feel pride in his/her condition perhaps, to march in support of it etc. But why would non-gay doctors ignore this illness because one symptom made it an uncomfortable subject? You think a politically-correct movement about syphilis would stop doctors treating it?

Just because you have decided that it is unnatural to be unhealthy does not make it so. Campaigning against people shagging each other in the arse because you think it is too risky is another thing altogether, but i get the feeling that's not the real issue here.

Wow, are you serious? When I see somebody suffering from an illness I want to help them, don't you feel the same? So much for the bleeding heart liberals if their new stance is 'you have AIDS, suck it up cupcake'.

I'm repeating myself, but until very recently homosexuality was listed in the USA as a mental disorder. The reason it isn't anymore was not because of scientific fact but political pressure. It's the same political pressure that makes criticism of homosexuality appear bigoted and irrational.

You point to syphilis and I completely agree. That's why this 'pro-homosexuality' movement is such a joke. You don't encourage people to stop getting treatment for syphilis but you do for homosexuality, it's ridiculous! What's the difference between the two? Well that's simple to answer; homosexuals are more of a collective than syphilis patients due to homophobic gay-bashing and the individual nature of syphilis compared to homosexuality (which obviously requires two or more people). Because there are homosexual communities and no syphilis suffering communities a homosexual political movement can and has been formed.

Treatments are available, as I've already explained (and given an example) in an earlier post. Further advancements are being conducted to increase treatment success rates. Unfortunately it is currently true that most of these treatments are organised by Christian fundamentalists. The reason being that these people have their own set of morals as to what is right and wrong (biblical instead of political) and thus they can carry out their treatments without fear of ostracisation.

[Bertros Bertros]

Treatments? Nice euphimism... in your own words... Wow, are you serious?

[heavycola]

I agree with chewyman, aslong as violence be considered a mental illness aswell. Violence is something that needs to be cured far more then homosexuality.

I completely agree with you. The thing is, we can do both at the same time, it's not a one or the other situation.

unhealthiness = unnatural? Illness = unnatural? Come on man, that's weak.
Look - if homosexuality is an illness, i think we can all agree that one of its common symptoms would be for the sufferer to feel pride in his/her condition perhaps, to march in support of it etc. But why would non-gay doctors ignore this illness because one symptom made it an uncomfortable subject? You think a politically-correct movement about syphilis would stop doctors treating it?

Just because you have decided that it is unnatural to be unhealthy does not make it so. Campaigning against people shagging each other in the arse because you think it is too risky is another thing altogether, but i get the feeling that's not the real issue here.

Wow, are you serious? When I see somebody suffering from an illness I want to help them, don't you feel the same? So much for the bleeding heart liberals if their new stance is 'you have AIDS, suck it up cupcake'.

You missed my point completely - maybe i didn't make it very well.

IF homosexuality is an illness, then it has symptoms, the biggest one being an attraction to the opposite sex. Another symptom- the one i am talking about - would be manifestations of 'gay pride' (which would be a great way for a contagious disease to insure against its demise, but i digress). I can't think of another 'illness' that has this effect on its 'sufferers', but it raises a point about what defines mental illness.

I'm repeating myself, but until very recently homosexuality was listed in the USA as a mental disorder. The reason it isn't anymore was not because of scientific fact but political pressure. It's the same political pressure that makes criticism of homosexuality appear bigoted and irrational.

Until quite recently, epilepsy was listed in the USA as demonic posession.

Look: Why would people suffering from an illness exert so much pressure convincing the wider world that they are not, in fact, ill?
And if an ill person doesn't want to be cured, does that suggest to you that their illness might be in your head? Does it not pose moral questions to you about forcing treatment on someone?

The political pressure you mention that somehow managed to change scientific opinion (has this ever happened before?) means that the large number of gay people exerting it don't want to be cured - so who are you to decide that a) they are all wrong about how they feel and b) that they need to be 'cured' regardless?

You point to syphilis and I completely agree. That's why this 'pro-homosexuality' movement is such a joke. You don't encourage people to stop getting treatment for syphilis but you do for homosexuality, it's ridiculous! What's the difference between the two? Well that's simple to answer; homosexuals are more of a collective than syphilis patients due to homophobic gay-bashing and the individual nature of syphilis compared to homosexuality (which obviously requires two or more people). Because there are homosexual communities and no syphilis suffering communities a homosexual political movement can and has been formed.

you don't see leper colonies banding together and fighting to be left uncured. If anyone is unhappy about who they are - gay, transgender, nosejob, whatever - they can try and do something about it. It's sad in each case but i don't see it as anyone's duty to try and stop them making their own choices, as long as no one else is being harmed. Live and let live.[/i]

[Anarchist]

Look: Why would people suffering from an illness exert so much pressure convincing the wider world that they are not, in fact, ill?
And if an ill person doesn't want to be cured, does that suggest to you that their illness might be in your head? Does it not pose moral questions to you about forcing treatment on someone?

The political pressure you mention that somehow managed to change scientific opinion (has this ever happened before?) means that the large number of gay people exerting it don't want to be cured - so who are you to decide that a) they are all wrong about how they feel and b) that they need to be 'cured' regardless?

[chewyman]

OK, mental illness was the wrong word, I should have said mental disorder. Just wanted to clarify that, it shouldn't make too big of a difference anyway.

You missed my point completely - maybe i didn't make it very well.

IF homosexuality is an illness, then it has symptoms, the biggest one being an attraction to the opposite sex. Another symptom- the one i am talking about - would be manifestations of 'gay pride' (which would be a great way for a contagious disease to insure against its demise, but i digress). I can't think of another 'illness' that has this effect on its 'sufferers', but it raises a point about what defines mental illness.

Well if your 'point' is in fact not a point at all but simply raising a question about the definition of mental disorder then I've really got nothing to say here. I don't believe that 'gay pride' is a symptom of homosexuality. My last post was an attempt to explain what I believe causes gay pride.

Until quite recently, epilepsy was listed in the USA as demonic posession.

Look: Why would people suffering from an illness exert so much pressure convincing the wider world that they are not, in fact, ill?
And if an ill person doesn't want to be cured, does that suggest to you that their illness might be in your head? Does it not pose moral questions to you about forcing treatment on someone?

I'm not sure when the epilepsy thing was changed but homosexuality was taken off the DSM-II in 1973/'74. I'm not sure when or even if your statement about epilepsy came about, do you have a link?

Disorders inflicting the brain are very different to those affecting other parts of the body. People with paranoid schizophrenia often refuse to accept that they have a problem for example. Mental disorders are often not as obvious (eg manic depression) and so it can appear that nothing is wrong. The difference between manic depression, paranoid schizophrenia and homosexuality is that the latter is a mental disorder that brings people together (sexual intercourse requires two or more people) and therefore communities are more likely to be formed.

I am hesitant to treat people with homosexuality just as much as I am to treat people with bowl cancer of paranoid schizophrenia. A schizophrenic may not want treatment forced on him or her, but to not do so would be to endanger his or her health and possibly life. The same applies to homosexuality. It would be inhumane to do anything else. Liberals who support homosexuality are just encouraging people to not seek help for their mental disorders and I think that is disgusting.

The political pressure you mention that somehow managed to change scientific opinion (has this ever happened before?) means that the large number of gay people exerting it don't want to be cured - so who are you to decide that a) they are all wrong about how they feel and b) that they need to be 'cured' regardless?

There are laws in place that force treatment upon sufferers of a whole range of mental and physical illnesses. For example, people found not be be of sound mind can have treatment forced upon them and cannot have euthanasia (in most countries where euthanasia is allowed). People suffering from homosexuality are not of a sound mind just like the paranoid schizophrenic who assures everybody that the aliens really are out to get him or her.

you don't see leper colonies banding together and fighting to be left uncured. If anyone is unhappy about who they are - gay, transgender, nosejob, whatever - they can try and do something about it. It's sad in each case but i don't see it as anyone's duty to try and stop them making their own choices, as long as no one else is being harmed. Live and let live.

Leprosy is a physical illness with obviously detectable symptoms and causes. Mental disorders are a whole different kettle of fish because there are often no apparent causes and the effects are often difficult to notice. I assume you wouldn't see it as anybody's duty to cure a manic depressant or a paranoid schizophrenic either? If you truly believe this then I go back to my previous comment about the evolution of bleeding heart liberals into their current form of 'you have AIDS, suck it up cupcake'. It just sounds heartless and inhumane.

Treatments? Nice euphimism... in your own words... Wow, are you serious?

It's not a euphemism, there really are treatments for homosexuality like all other disorders. Some involve just therapy, others I assume, would also include a prescription of medication (but I don't know about that, I'd have to do some more research).

[Bertros Bertros]

I am hesitant to treat people with homosexuality just as much as I am to treat people with bowl cancer of paranoid schizophrenia. A schizophrenic may not want treatment forced on him or her, but to not do so would be to endanger his or her health and possibly life. The same applies to homosexuality. It would be inhumane to do anything else. Liberals who support homosexuality are just encouraging people to not seek help for their mental disorders and I think that is disgusting.

I heard pretty much the same argument from luns in the brokeback thread and it is rubbish. Schizophrenics are treated because they pose a danger to others. The danger to health or life with respect to homosexuality is presumably HIV? Then your argument applies equally to anyone having unprotected sex, sharing needles, haemophiliac etc. Being gay does not mean you contract AIDS. Being promiscuous and having unprotected sex increase your risk of contraction but that is very different.

Treatment is a euphimism. A nice way of justifying your desire to coerce people living a lifestyle which makes you feel uncomfortable to stop doing so against their will. It is just a facade of caring behind which hides the standard homphobic bigotry and I think that is disgusting.

As for epilipsy, the last state in the US to repeal the law banning epilectics from marrying was in 1980, until the 70s there were states which banned epilectics from restuarants etc and until 1956 there were even states sterilising epilectics! Your desired link - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs166/en/

EDIT: As a reciprocal courtesy perhaps you could provide a link to details of treatments for homosexuality from a credible organisation, the WHO will undoubtedly have details of these treatments.

[Backglass]

EDIT: As a reciprocal courtesy perhaps you could provide a link to details of treatments for homosexuality from a credible organisation, the WHO will undoubtedly have details of these treatments.

I am going out on a limb here, but I would be willing to bet that all the "treatments" are faith based christian programs that most likely publish unprovable "99% cure rates".

After all...they just want to help.

[Stopper]

An interesting paper, published in the British Medical Journal, regarding "treatments" of homosexuality in the UK - at least one case involving "behavioural aversion therapy with electric shocks" as late as 1980!

I hope the fact I've been looking up "treatments for homosexuality" at work isn't easily traceable by the IT staff here.

[chewyman]

I heard pretty much the same argument from luns in the brokeback thread and it is rubbish. Schizophrenics are treated because they pose a danger to others. The danger to health or life with respect to homosexuality is presumably HIV? Then your argument applies equally to anyone having unprotected sex, sharing needles, haemophiliac etc. Being gay does not mean you contract AIDS. Being promiscuous and having unprotected sex increase your risk of contraction but that is very different.

Treatment is a euphimism. A nice way of justifying your desire to coerce people living a lifestyle which makes you feel uncomfortable to stop doing so against their will. It is just a facade of caring behind which hides the standard homphobic bigotry and I think that is disgusting.

As for epilipsy, the last state in the US to repeal the law banning epilectics from marrying was in 1980, until the 70s there were states which banned epilectics from restuarants etc and until 1956 there were even states sterilising epilectics! Your desired link - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs166/en/

EDIT: As a reciprocal courtesy perhaps you could provide a link to details of treatments for homosexuality from a credible organisation, the WHO will undoubtedly have details of these treatments.

*sigh* I knew it would happen eventually, in fact I was surprised by how long it took. I am not a member of the religious right and I do not feel uncomfortable around homosexual people. Please reread my arguments until now without just jumping to such conclusions and keeping your personal biases in check. I've already dealt with all these points, including how there are serious health concerns that arise from homosexuality. These concerns, while also present in penile-vaginal intercourse, have a far higher level of risk. HIV/AIDS isn't the only health concern, what about the cancers I mentioned? Or did you not read that post either?


EDIT: Schizophrenics aren't just treated because they pose a danger to others, they also pose a danger to themselves and doctors/psychologists/psychiatrists want to help them. What a very cruel and selfish world you must live in where you would only help people who have an impact on you personally.

I am going out on a limb here, but I would be willing to bet that all the "treatments" are faith based christian programs that most likely publish unprovable "99% cure rates".

After all...they just want to help.

Something I've already stated many times. Unfortunately it is the case at present that most treatment programs are faith based. The reason for this isn't a lack of scientific results, conditioning is very effecting at changing any behaviour, including homosexuality. Being opposed to homosexuality, or offering treatment for it has become politically incorrect thanks to liberals like Bertros and the gay and lesbian movement itself. Christian fundamentalists are not as concerned with defying politically correct trends because their moral code is centred on the bible instead.

An interesting paper, published in the British Medical Journal, regarding "treatments" of homosexuality in the UK - at least one case involving "behavioural aversion therapy with electric shocks" as late as 1980!

I hope the fact I've been looking up "treatments for homosexuality" at work isn't easily traceable by the IT staff here.

Thanks for the link, saves me the time and effort.

[heavycola]

*sigh* I knew it would happen eventually, in fact I was surprised by how long it took. I am not a member of the religious right and I do not feel uncomfortable around homosexual people. Please reread my arguments until now without just jumping to such conclusions and keeping your personal biases in check. I've already dealt with all these points, including how there are serious health concerns that arise from homosexuality. These concerns, while also present in penile-vaginal intercourse, have a far higher level of risk. HIV/AIDS isn't the only health concern, what about the cancers I mentioned? Or did you not read that post either?


EDIT: Schizophrenics aren't just treated because they pose a danger to others, they also pose a danger to themselves and doctors/psychologists/psychiatrists want to help them. What a very cruel and selfish world you must live in where you would only help people who have an impact on you personally.

First, i don't think anyone has accused you of having a religious agenda.
Second, there is no health risk in being attracted to someone of the same sex. You keep saying there is, though. I think you mean - 'certain sexual practices carry a higher risk than others.' You keep talking about AIDS and cancer, when merely being homosexual does not, of itself, increase one's chance's of contracting anything. Certain behaviours may increase risk, but surely that is what freedom of choice is all about?
i mean - conditioning. FFS. Have you never seen/read a clockwork orange? Look - if being foolhardy means I take more risks with my life, does that make foolhardiness unnatural? not everyone is foolhardy - should the foolhardy be conditioned? After all it would be a cruel and selfish world if we did not force this treatment on them for their own good.


And again, please name me one other 'illness' whose 'sufferers' expend as much energy in telling the world they are not sick. And what are you talking about political correctness for? Are you actually suggesting that doctors have betrayed their hippocratic oath because they are scared of offending people? Seriously? Have you considered that scientific and humanitarian opinions might have changed?

[Stopper]

An interesting paper, published in the British Medical Journal, regarding "treatments" of homosexuality in the UK - at least one case involving "behavioural aversion therapy with electric shocks" as late as 1980!

I hope the fact I've been looking up "treatments for homosexuality" at work isn't easily traceable by the IT staff here.

Thanks for the link, saves me the time and effort.

That response suggests you haven't read the paper.

[MeDeFe]

Funny you mention it, I just finished watching that movie about an hour ago.

[2dimes]

And again, please name me one other 'illness' whose 'sufferers' expend as much energy in telling the world they are not sick.

Chronic masterbaters.

Now let me see the magazine for five minutes, and go get us some more jiffy lube we're out again!!

I hope the fact I've been looking up "treatments for homosexuality" at work isn't easily traceable by the IT staff here. Unless it helps that cute asian guy hook up with me before I get cured.

Obviously the male need to ejaculate is a mental disorder and part of the cause of homosexuality. Anyone denying this is wrong.

It also leads to all sorts of completely insane things our gender does. Marriage to women for example, this is just too difficult to be natural.

Even if it's your sister.