Is homosexuality a disease?

shmap

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Wrong. I have my own opinions of him, but I don't much care whether or not you agree. I wanted to post the website I found because it contains interesting information, from which you can form your own opinions about him. The page to which I'm now linking is basically a summary of the first. Much easier to read through: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html

Ahnimus

shmap wrote:

Wrong. I have my own opinions of him, but I don't much care whether or not you agree. I wanted to post the website I found because it contains interesting information, from which you can form your own opinions about him. The page to which I'm now linking is basically a summary of the first. Much easier to read through: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html

WTF? Where does it say his 1991 research that I cited is inaccurate?

All this is talking about is his stupid book and the stupid comments he makes.

Ahnimus

I think it's dumb that everyone in the public can have strong opinions about homosexuality or transsexuality. But a guy that spends almost 20 years researching it, can't?

Fuck, if I spent almost 20 years researching sexual orientation, I'd probably be pretty opinionated on it as well. I'm not agreeing with Bailey's opinions in any way.

I'm simply saying that the research done in 1991 shows some genetic influence on sexual orientation. Why is that such a crime?

shmap

Ahnimus wrote:

WTF? Where does it say his 1991 research that I cited is inaccurate?

All this is talking about is his stupid book and the stupid comments he makes.

I didn't say that the link would discuss that, did I? Seriously, stop jumping down my throat. You're being ridiculous.

Ahnimus

shmap wrote:

I didn't say that the link would discuss that, did I? Seriously, stop jumping down my throat. You're being ridiculous.

You are confusing me. What was I wrong about?

Ahnimus

According to J. Michael Bailey. His book has nothing at all to do with his research, but rather two theories by Blanchard.

http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm#book

Ahnimus

Also according to J. Michael Bailey, that website you posted shmap is a "hysterical misrepresentation" and some transsexuals agree with the points in his book.

http://www.autogynephilia.org/

http://www.transkids.us/

You can also read portions of his book here
http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/skimit.cgi?isbn=0309084180&chap=55-84

shmap

Ahnimus wrote:

Also according to J. Michael Bailey, that website you posted shmap is a "hysterical misrepresentation" and some transsexuals agree with the points in his book.

http://www.autogynephilia.org/

http://www.transkids.us/

You can also read portions of his book here
http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/skimit.cgi?isbn=0309084180&chap=55-84

That's fine and dandy. Many transsexuals don't agree with the points in his book, so what are you getting at?

I'm taking a break from this thread, you're making me out to be some Bailey-basher when all I'm trying to do is show you a different perspective from what you hold. I really don't appreciate your tone, so you can go attempt to ridicule someone else for a while.

Ahnimus

shmap wrote:

That's fine and dandy. Many transsexuals don't agree with the points in his book, so what are you getting at?

I'm taking a break from this thread, you're making me out to be some Bailey-basher when all I'm trying to do is show you a different perspective from what you hold. I really don't appreciate your tone, so you can go attempt to ridicule someone else for a while.

Tone? Haha that's funny.

Dude, I cited research and then you said something about the researcher. I'm confused as hell, probably more than you.

FiveB247x

One of my good friends has the best logic when discussing this arguement (whether being gay is a choice or not). Here's what he says: If you, as a hetrosexual can remember the time when you decided to like women (for a man) or men (if you're a woman), then that point would be valid. But it's something that isn't chosen. No one has such an answer which shows that they never made a decision, it's something you just have.

hippiemom

FiveB247x wrote:

One of my good friends has the best logic when discussing this arguement (whether being gay is a choice or not). Here's what he says: If you, as a hetrosexual can remember the time when you decided to like women (for a man) or men (if you're a woman), then that point would be valid. But it's something that isn't chosen. No one has such an answer which shows that they never made a decision, it's something you just have.

That's what I've always said. I was always hanging around the boys when I was little ... I like them because they didn't fight as much as the girls, and they never wanted to style my hair or play with Barbies. And seemingly all of a sudden, they weren't just people to play baseball with anymore. I certainly never "decided" to think of them differently, I just did, and I know that there's no way I could "choose" to be sexually attracted to women.

All I can think is that anyone who thinks it's a choice must be bi-sexual themselves. If you think others chose their sexuality, does that mean that you chose yours? If you could just as easily choose one over the other, face it, you're bi.

Ahnimus

hippiemom wrote:

That's what I've always said. I was always hanging around the boys when I was little ... I like them because they didn't fight as much as the girls, and they never wanted to style my hair or play with Barbies. And seemingly all of a sudden, they weren't just people to play baseball with anymore. I certainly never "decided" to think of them differently, I just did, and I know that there's no way I could "choose" to be sexually attracted to women.

All I can think is that anyone who thinks it's a choice must be bi-sexual themselves. If you think others chose their sexuality, does that mean that you chose yours? If you could just as easily choose one over the other, face it, you're bi.

I think people think it's a choice, because they think we have choice to begin with.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

GO for it, ask as many questions as you want, but be warned all I know is learned on the internet.

NCC is a term coined by Christof Koch and Francis Crick.

They've been studying the Neural Correlates of Consciousness in the Visual system for 20 years. Francis Crick is passed away now.

You can watch Christof Koch's lecture series here.
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/

Hiya ahnimus, I gotta ask. Do you ever sleep?
Anyway I'm here at my (doofus) brother's house and apparently we couldn't download this one because the plug-in was not available. Gonna try for the other stuff now.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

Hiya ahnimus, I gotta ask. Do you ever sleep?
Anyway I'm here at my (doofus) brother's house and apparently we couldn't download this one because the plug-in was not available. Gonna try for the other stuff now.

I hardly sleep at all.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

I hardly sleep at all.

Yeah, I get that about you!;)

Downloaded the realtime player and had a quick look at the 1st HHI lecture but was booted off by my niece who had a major hissy fit. My bro has his computer/TV/Stereo/DVD/video all hooked up together so apparently I was inconveniently interupting her 4000 watch of BRUM!! (I'm such an evil Aunty) I'm gonna have another go at watching during the week while she's on nap time. I'll let you know.:)

IWillLiveForeve

Who Fucking Cares? They Aren't Hurting You. It Certainly Isn't Contagious. Dumbest Fucking Question, Dumbest Fucking String I Have Seen.

darkcrow

is it a disease? no. it is all that damn hippy food...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

Soy is making kids 'gay'

---

Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.


I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?

Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.

Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.

In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.