The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[RumTumTugger]

Yeah, I gotta agree with Epo on that one..

me too

[Jedidiah]

You beat me to it Epo.

[DesertBerean]

I actually agree with Epo on this one too!

[TimelessTheist]

And what does that accomplish? They're hypocrites, and that's supposed to be news? If this is just a writing exercise for you, fine: an inconsequential essay for an inconsequential tangent. Just remember that you're capable of more.

Because the majority of the LGBT 'still' use these canards, and see no problem with them. I was simply explaining why they don't work.

[Tassman]

Yeah, I gotta agree with Epo on that one..

Agree with what? Ridicule is not a rebuttal. Nor is it an appropriate response to a topic which affects the lives of millions of people.

The

http://www.lgbt-education.info/en/ne...ws/news?id=572

[Darth Executor]

The APA is widely considered a progressive cult by anyone even remotely familiar with it who isn't a progressive. You don't get to corrupt an institution and then pretend it's still netural and professional and expect to be taken seriously when you quote it. The APA has no credibility with people who aren't progressive. To use an analogy you might understand, when you quote the APA to us it's is like when we quote WorldNetDaily to you. It's worthless. Garbage. Trash.

[MaxVel]

Ridicule is not a rebuttal. Nor is it an appropriate response to a topic which affects the lives of millions of people.

You should be telling this to Dawkins....

[Tassman]

The APA is widely considered a progressive cult by anyone even remotely familiar with it who isn't a progressive. You don't get to corrupt an institution and then pretend it's still netural and professional and expect to be taken seriously when you quote it. The APA has no credibility with people who aren't progressive. To use an analogy you might understand, when you quote the APA to us it's is like when we quote WorldNetDaily to you. It's worthless. Garbage. Trash.

“The APA is widely considered a progressive cult” by whom - Evangelical Christians?

This is an absurd assessment of a major professional association. It doesn't have to prove its credentials to the likes of you. “The American Psychological Association (APA) is the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States and Canada. It is the world's largest association of psychologists with around 137,000 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students…” Wiki.

Its views on homosexuality and “reparative” therapies are shared by virtually every health care association in the world as reflected by the World Health Organization: "Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation …" Practices known as "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" represent a serious threat to the health and well-being—even the lives—of affected people."

http://www.lgbt-education.info/en/ne...ws/news?id=572

In effect you’re claiming that virtually every health care professional in the world is part of a “corrupt progressive cult”. Are you serious?

[Jedidiah]

The APA is widely considered a progressive cult by anyone even remotely familiar with it who isn't a progressive. You don't get to corrupt an institution and then pretend it's still netural and professional and expect to be taken seriously when you quote it. The APA has no credibility with people who aren't progressive. To use an analogy you might understand, when you quote the APA to us it's is like when we quote WorldNetDaily to you. It's worthless. Garbage. Trash.

You said it, Darth.

[Jedidiah]

by whom - Evangelical Christians?

By a large number of real psychologists who have been abused and put on the sidelines so a bunch of thugs could "normalize" a pathological condition.

No it is only the thug members who have perverted the APA and sidelined good competent men and women.

[Tassman]

By a large number of real psychologists who have been abused and put on the sidelines so a bunch of thugs could "normalize" a pathological condition.

Seriously!

No it is only the thug members who have perverted the APA and sidelined good competent men and women.

[NotSoHumblePie]

This thread is a bit difficult to follow, since no one seems to stay on any particular point. However, what I've gleaned from this thread, combined with my own thoughts, is the following:

1. AIDS can be attributed to homosexuals, more-so than heterosexuals, which is a reason that homosexuality is "wrong".
2. This is because they engage in rectal intercourse.
3. Heterosexuals also engage in rectal intercourse.
4. Rectal intercourse is therefore not an exclusively homosexual act.
5. Therefore AIDS, as caused by rectal intercourse, is not inherently caused by homosexuality.
6. AIDS is able to be attributed to homosexuality, through rectal intercourse, only because of a larger number of participants in the sexual behavior, not because of their orientation itself.
7. Therefore, the "wrong" action, is not homosexuality, but specifically, sodomy.
8. Homosexuals do not have to engage in sodomy, while remaining homosexual (oral intercourse is an option, as well as any variety of other behaviors).
9. Therefore, homosexuality is not "wrong"...in this instance.

1. AIDS can be attributed to homosexuals, more-so than heterosexuals, which is a reason that homosexuality is "wrong".
2. This is because they are more promiscuous.
3. Heterosexuals are also promiscuous.
4. Promiscuity is therefore not exclusive to homosexuals.
5. Therefore, AIDS as caused by promiscuity, is not inherently caused by homosexuality.
6. AIDS is able to be attributed to homosexuality, as caused by promiscuity, only if homosexuals are able to be shown to be MORE promiscuous than heterosexuals, but that remains to be shown.
7. Even if it were the case that homosexuals were MORE promiscuous than heterosexuals, it would not be the homosexuality itself that is the "wrong" action, but the promiscuity.

Some folks are saying that homosexuality can be "changed". Perhaps this is true, but remains to be seen in any real sense of the term. I recall seeing an interview with a man who ran a "gay to straight" program, and he seemed a bit "iffy" to me. I mean, I guess he can claim to be "straight", but his affectations indicated the exact opposite. He talks the talk (with a lisp), and when he walks the walk, it's really more of a sashay.

I'm not really taking a stance, frankly. I don't really care all that much about the issue of homosexuality, whether it's good, bad, neither, whatever. To me, it's not really a moral issue. I don't think that it's my business what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I'm an American. I believe in freedom first. I think we should limit government involvement in our lives, especially those aspects of our lives that are very personal and private. I don't think there should be legislation for nor against "homosexuality", nor that it should even be a legal issue. I don't believe in the imposition of my will on others. Just as I think it's disgusting to be a vegan, and comes with a myriad of potential health problems, but I don't seek to tell someone that it is "wrong" to be a vegan.

One thing I will say, is that I don't support the flamboyant "in your face" parading of one's sexuality, in the form of literal parades, etc. To me, one's sexuality, what one chooses to do with their private body parts, is just that...private. I don't want to hear about a straight person's sexual exploits, I don't want to hear about a gay person's sexual exploits. If I met you, and never knew your sexual orientation, I would be perfectly fine. It's just not important to me.

[Teallaura]

This thread is a bit difficult to follow, since no one seems to stay on any particular point. However, what I've gleaned from this thread, combined with my own thoughts, is the following:

1. AIDS can be attributed to homosexuals, more-so than heterosexuals, which is a reason that homosexuality is "wrong".
2. This is because they engage in rectal intercourse.
3. Heterosexuals also engage in rectal intercourse.
4. Rectal intercourse is therefore not an exclusively homosexual act.
5. Therefore AIDS, as caused by rectal intercourse, is not inherently caused by homosexuality.
6. AIDS is able to be attributed to homosexuality, through rectal intercourse, only because of a larger number of participants in the sexual behavior, not because of their orientation itself.
7. Therefore, the "wrong" action, is not homosexuality, but specifically, sodomy.
8. Homosexuals do not have to engage in sodomy, while remaining homosexual (oral intercourse is an option, as well as any variety of other behaviors).
9. Therefore, homosexuality is not "wrong"...in this instance.

1. AIDS can be attributed to homosexuals, more-so than heterosexuals, which is a reason that homosexuality is "wrong".
2. This is because they are more promiscuous.
3. Heterosexuals are also promiscuous.
4. Promiscuity is therefore not exclusive to homosexuals.
5. Therefore, AIDS as caused by promiscuity, is not inherently caused by homosexuality.
6. AIDS is able to be attributed to homosexuality, as caused by promiscuity, only if homosexuals are able to be shown to be MORE promiscuous than heterosexuals, but that remains to be shown.
7. Even if it were the case that homosexuals were MORE promiscuous than heterosexuals, it would not be the homosexuality itself that is the "wrong" action, but the promiscuity.

Some folks are saying that homosexuality can be "changed". Perhaps this is true, but remains to be seen in any real sense of the term. I recall seeing an interview with a man who ran a "gay to straight" program, and he seemed a bit "iffy" to me. I mean, I guess he can claim to be "straight", but his affectations indicated the exact opposite. He talks the talk (with a lisp), and when he walks the walk, it's really more of a sashay.

I'm not really taking a stance, frankly. I don't really care all that much about the issue of homosexuality, whether it's good, bad, neither, whatever. To me, it's not really a moral issue. I don't think that it's my business what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I'm an American. I believe in freedom first. I think we should limit government involvement in our lives, especially those aspects of our lives that are very personal and private. I don't think there should be legislation for nor against "homosexuality", nor that it should even be a legal issue. I don't believe in the imposition of my will on others. Just as I think it's disgusting to be a vegan, and comes with a myriad of potential health problems, but I don't seek to tell someone that it is "wrong" to be a vegan.

One thing I will say, is that I don't support the flamboyant "in your face" parading of one's sexuality, in the form of literal parades, etc. To me, one's sexuality, what one chooses to do with their private body parts, is just that...private. I don't want to hear about a straight person's sexual exploits, I don't want to hear about a gay person's sexual exploits. If I met you, and never knew your sexual orientation, I would be perfectly fine. It's just not important to me.

Neither of those syllogisms actually work - mostly because you get the first one wrong in both cases. Then you get the factuals wrong.

1) Morality is not an issue of public health - disease is not proof or disproof of morality.
2) Disease may be proof or disproof of safety and communicable disease is proof or disproof of behavior where behavior directly impacts communicability.
3) Arguments based on equality of homosexual acts and heterosexual acts in terms of safety necessarily disregard the statistical evidence.
4) The statistical evidence overwhelmingly links HIV to two main vectors: rectal intercourse and IDU. In areas of high heterosexual spread, the statistical also show high STD prevalence absent in areas of low heterosexual spread, indicating a third main vector, co-infection.
5) Statistical evidence does not support a large heterosexual pop involved in rectal intercourse; it supports heterosexual spread via co-infection.
6) Based on the evidence, homosexual acts increase significantly the risk of HIV spread. Compare to the negligible spread found in the US in WHF.
7) Homosexual acts cannot be legitimately regarded as safe based on the HIV and STD incidence.
8) High prevalence is the indicator for high promiscuity; it is found in the MSM pop to a far higher degree than the heterosexual pop. Further evidence of unsafe behavior within the population.

Based on the above, arguments for normalcy have an extremely high hurdle to show no harm.

Wanna try again?

[fm93]

Not just cherry-picked studies that fit your preconceptions.

Back in my mid-teenage years, when I was ensnared in the mire of fundamentalism, I briefly did think that sexual orientation could be changed by volition, so my current belief is not a preconception.

The Shidlo-Schroder study, was not scientific. It was INTERVIEWING people about what they thought about sexual orientation change therapy.

They selected a sample of people who had participated in conversion therapy and asked them about the results. That's a known procedure called surveying. Even if you think the sample is too small to be representative, the study at least shows that harm can be associated with the therapy.

Spitzer. 17% and 54% sound like a pretty large percentage for something you claimed was immutable.

Those figures are merely the percentages of people who were exclusively heterosexual afterwards. You have to keep in mind that less than half of the people in the sample were exclusively homosexual before the therapy, so the percentage of people who possibly made a genuine change is even smaller.

So.. the evidence is pretty lacking to prove the immutability of changing sexual orientation using therapy, and whether or not it is harmful in any way. I don't consider polling people as actual scientific studies.

Again, it's technically more that they can't find any conclusive evidence that it works (because the studies saying that it does have been shown to be flawed), and many of the people who initially reported success later recanted, giving reason to believe that even the cases that might've been genuine change weren't actually genuine. Then you have the many people who say that it didn't work even initially. As for whether it's harmful? Technically it doesn't have to be if a therapist helps the patient cope with same-sex attractions and perhaps even reduces their frequency, but when you claim that you can remove and replace same-sex attractions with opposite-attractions, that's when the lie becomes damaging.

Where is this extensive data you keep talking about?

The earlier articles I posted explain how the studies claiming that the therapy works are flawed and can't be taken as evidence. I already listed many of the "ex-gay" leaders who admitted that they didn't truly change and recanted their previous claims. Beckstead and Morrow document some of the effects of therapy.

[Teallaura]

SP, he asked for the extensive studies you claim exist. All you provided were lit reviews - and bad ones at that.

Link to the study you think is flawed - not merely the explanation. I can read methodology perfectly well - let's see what the thing actually says, shall we? And find those 'extensive studies' you mentioned while you're at it.

Or concede you don't have that information although you believe it exists. (It's a valid, if weak, position.)