Is homosexuality a disease?

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Inheritable? Do you mean heritable, or the opposite of heritable? I'm confused.

heritable is what I meant.

Ahnimus

callen wrote:

and you have my respect.

Thanks Callen

Ahnimus

shmap wrote:

Northwestern didn't fire the professor who firmly believes - and argues in his classes - that the Holocaust didn't occur. I'd called him bigoted, prejudiced and biased. So no, I'm not at all surprised that Bailey has stayed on.

And by the way, much of the ruckus was caused not so much by Bailey's theories on homosexuality, but by his book on transsexuals. I was there, I remember this quite clearly.

Well, a lot of people deny the holocaust. It's unfortunate, I bet it wouldn't be this bad if the Jews didn't get Israel out of it.

The fact that they attacked his research because of a book is fucked up. So the statistics I quoted were accurate, what a waste of time man.

Andre_W

NCfan wrote:

First, let me say that I started this thread just to see what people think.... not becuase I'm against gay people. I have many gay friends and I think the government should allow homosexuals all the rights and liberties as they do heterosexuals. I also agree that being gay is not a choice, you are born that way.

That being said, let's look at nature. It is a fact that homosexuality is an anomally among animals. The vast majority of animals are genetically programed to be attracted to the opposite sex to ensure the survival of the species. Therefore, it seems that something "goes wrong" when humans develop to be homosexuals. This argument might sounds bigoted, but it holds some truth. Humans are not supposed to be autistic no more than they are supposed to be gay. It is not natures way for species to be homosexual. In other words, gays will ALWAYS be a small minority of the population regardless how accepted they are by society or the government.

I look at this fact when contemplating if gay couples should be allowed to raise children... a la Mary Chaney. I'm not saying the government should step in, I just feel that it is morally wrong towards the child for them to be raised in a homosexual household.

I feel that it serves the parents more than the child. I have no problem with people proclaiming their homosexuality. But why would they want to put a child in the precarious situation of being raised in that environment??? It seems amoral and selfish to me. Nature has given us the rules by which species procreate. It is unatural for gays to have children, it is synthetic...


Your thoughts?


Let me also say that I can see the case for adoption much more so than say a gay women who gets impregnated in order to have children.

For someone with gay friends you sure come across as having a lack of understanding of homosexuality

homosexuality is not unnatural, nor immoral!!

species of dolphin have homosexual relations and only mix to procreate.

many species of bird have relationships made up of two males, and a third bird (female) is accepted into the family when it is time to procreate.

One species of ape is known for it's promiscuous sex between males/females/youths/infants

There are many many more examples

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002340835_gaycritter19m.html
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php


It is not a human phenomenon, nor is it unnatural. Personally I couldn't fathom having sexual relations with another bloke, but I commend those for whom gender is no issue. There are many amazing women and men in this world, and unfortunately I have been restricted to forming intense relationships only with women.

I don't feel sorry for homosexuals, or for bisexuals, but for everyone like me who only get a choice from about 50% of those who we meet.

Ahnimus

"One species of ape is known for it's promiscuous sex between males/females/youths/infants"

I hypothesize that pedophilia is also genetic.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

"One species of ape is known for it's promiscuous sex between males/females/youths/infants"

I hypothesize that pedophilia is also genetic.

Ahnimus!! You are such a shit stirrer!!! This is going to errupt you know that don't you?

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

Ahnimus!! You are such a shit stirrer!!! This is going to errupt you know that don't you?

Perhaps, it's just a hypothesis. There is significant reason to believe so. I mean, your average person isn't attracted to kids, are they?

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

Perhaps, it's just a hypothesis. There is significant reason to believe so.

I think it's an interesting hypothesis and it's most likely that there is a genetic component to it. But I also wonder about recidivism rates. That is, how many children that have been abused become the abuser as an adult? The other issue is what constitutes paedophilia in this current climate? I mean to say most guys are jacking off to Victoria's Secret and Calvin Klein catalogues where the girls posing are in their early teens. And don't get me started about the Video Hits generation and it's former poster child Brittany Spears and the sexualization of pop music. So I suppose the question I ask here is has the current objectification of younger and younger women correlated with a marked increase in child pornography & paedophilia?

Ahnimus wrote:

I mean your average person isn't attracted to kids, are they?

Who really knows what goes on in other people's minds. Having said that I think most people find paedophilia abhorent.

Ahnimus

I did read a paper a while back about sexual development. The theory was that people don't develop beyond the age of a child in their sexuality. So while a 15 year old is easily attracted to a 14 year old. A guy that stopped developing at that age, could still find 14 year olds attractive at age 25.

I don't know though, could just be they aren't popular with women their own age. Who knows?

Ahnimus

By the way Jeanie, did you get a chance to watch that lecture series on Stem Cells?

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

I did read a paper a while back about sexual development. The theory was that people don't develop beyond the age of a child in their sexuality. So while a 15 year old is easily attracted to a 14 year old. A guy that stopped developing at that age, could still find 14 year olds attractive at age 25.

That can't be right can it? I'm sure I'm much more sexually developed now than what I was at 15! Well I hope so anyway!

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't know though, could just be they aren't popular with women their own age. Who knows?

That's funny!

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

By the way Jeanie, did you get a chance to watch that lecture series on Stem Cells?

No not yet, I'm sorry. I'm planning to have a look at it over the weekend at my brothers. He's got broadband and he's a bit of a computer nerd so he can smooth me through all the downloading and registering and stuff. I will read it and get back to you though. And about the NCC.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

No not yet, I'm sorry. I'm planning to have a look at it over the weekend at my brothers. He's got broadband and he's a bit of a computer nerd so he can smooth me through all the downloading and registering and stuff. I will read it and get back to you though. And about the NCC.

I don't think you have to register if you use the link I posted.

I can't find the paper on pedophelia ephebophelia, I think the thread was deleted at some point and it was really hard to find it to begin with.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.

It's pretty clear your mind is made up on the subject. shmap gave you firsthand information regarding some questionable behaviour from the guy, and you "justified" and rationalized it away. I'm with soulsinging on this: it looks like you are more interested in making this say what you want it to say, rather than being open to assess what is happening.

The fact is, this guy ALSO agreed to stay on at the University. It's just as possible the University was trying to give him a break, and he recognizes he needs one. To jump to a conclusion one way or another when you don't have any facts, I call personal bias.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't think you have to register if you use the link I posted.

I can't find the paper on pedophelia ephebophelia, I think the thread was deleted at some point and it was really hard to find it to begin with.

I tried to get them from your post the other night but wasn't successful. I'm sure it's me! So I'm going to Doofus tomorrow and get him to get it for me. It'll be much easier and quicker with the broadband and he's used to having to help me besides it makes him feel superior!

I'll try and do a google search on the pedophelia ephebophelia and see what I get. But not tonight. It's 12.42am and I gotta be on the newsagents doorstep at 6am to try and get a copy of the Make Poverty History DVD. I'll definitely do my homework and get back to you. g'night:)

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's pretty clear your mind is made up on the subject. shmap gave you firsthand information regarding some questionable behaviour from the guy, and you "justified" and rationalized it away. I'm with soulsinging on this: it looks like you are more interested in making this say what you want it to say, rather than being open to assess what is happening.

The fact is, this guy ALSO agreed to stay on at the University. It's just as possible the University was trying to give him a break, and he recognizes he needs one. To jump to a conclusion one way or another when you don't have any facts, I call personal bias.

I know more about it than you do. He did the work with Richard Pillard. However, Pillard was never even investigated let alone slandered as such. Never mind, your mad at me. That's what this is about.

You are mad because I suggested you may have had a psychotic episode. But honestly? What did you expect when you trash-talk science because of a vision you had? People take psychoactive drugs like Salvia D and have lucid visions all the time.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

I tried to get them from your post the other night but wasn't successful. I'm sure it's me! So I'm going to Doofus tomorrow and get him to get it for me. It'll be much easier and quicker with the broadband and he's used to having to help me besides it makes him feel superior!

I'll try and do a google search on the pedophelia ephebophelia and see what I get. But not tonight. It's 12.42am and I gotta be on the newsagents doorstep at 6am to try and get a copy of the Make Poverty History DVD. I'll definitely do my homework and get back to you. g'night:)

Your friend has an interesting name. I don't think I'll adopt it if I ever have a son.

Yea, it's 8:48 A.M. here and I haven't slept yet. I guess I'm due too.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I know more about it than you do. He did the work with Richard Pillard. However, Pillard was never even investigated let alone slandered as such. Never mind, your mad at me. That's what this is about.

You are mad because I suggested you may have had a psychotic episode. But honestly? What did you expect when you trash-talk science because of a vision you had? People take psychoactive drugs like Salvia D and have lucid visions all the time.

Then what's soulsingings reasoning for pointing out your bias? It's kinda obvious that you were using science to pull rank in this thread, and to back your opinions. You made such a fuss about your fact-based opinions and how the others had mere opinions without back-up. Therefore I can totally understand you grappling to keep the relevence of "your" science guy backed up to the hilt. That's fine, but I can't ignore what you are ignoring about the questions as to his methods, which were detailed in different parts in wikipedia. Specifically how he carried out a study or experiment is not part of a societal conspiracy--it's purely on him. He may or may not be "guilty". I'm just saying given what we know from wikipedia only, (not even regarding the complex link shmap provided) to assume one way or another seems biased to me, especially given that you have a obvious agenda of maintaining your "rightness" with your science "expertise" backing you.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

Your friend has an interesting name. I don't think I'll adopt it if I ever have a son.

Yea, it's 8:48 A.M. here and I haven't slept yet. I guess I'm due too.

LOL!!! Doofus is my nickname for my brother! He hates it! Which is why I love it so much! Anyway g'night, its been interesting talking with you again. I'll read up on all the info and get back to you.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Then what's soulsingings reasoning for pointing out your bias? It's kinda obvious that you were using science to pull rank in this thread, and to back your opinions. You made such a fuss about your fact-based opinions and how the others had mere opinions without back-up. Therefore I can totally understand you grappling to keep the relevence of "your" science guy backed up to the hilt. That's fine, but I can't ignore what you are ignoring about the questions as to his methods, which were detailed in different parts in wikipedia. Specifically how he carried out a study or experiment is not part of a societal conspiracy--it's purely on him. He may or may not be "guilty". I'm just saying given what we know from wikipedia only, (not even regarding the complex link shmap provided) to assume one way or another seems biased to me, especially given that you have a obvious agenda of maintaining your "rightness" with your science "expertise" backing you.

The link that shmap posted was hardly complex. It was just pointing out that he was a target for his book. His research has never been discredited by anyone and is still available online. I don't hold shmap entirely responsible but it's just all distorted now. I think shmap was just trying to point out what a weird and bigoted guy Bailey is. I don't know. I don't see a need to discredit his work, especially when it is what it is.