swiatlo wrote:Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity superstitious tendencies. This proves nothing, has no significance in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder. What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind. Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?
Talking about sex addiction Fundamentalist Christians, like any other addiction fundamentalism (hypersexuality Islam) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality Christianity in moderation would make it OK. Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder. Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia goat sacrificing and coprophagia stoning witches. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation. Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.
Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers. This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.
Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.
I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia sacrificing virgins, pedophilia raping altar boys, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions religious extremism, they all are disorders (Paraphilia delusion). You insist homosexuality moderate Christian views should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

swiatlo wrote:As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK.

It would make it better than ok. You know what they say, "practice makes perfect".

swiatlo wrote:Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity.

Which was done specifically to refute the "homosexuality is a disorder" canard. Please explain to us all how those insects are "disordered"? And while you're at it, please explain to us all why the same magic man purportedly declaring homosexuality to be an "abomination" also puportedly, created over 1,000 species exhibiting this purported "abomination"?

swiatlo wrote:This proves nothing

Wrong. It demonstrates that your assertion about homosexuality being a "disorder" is complete horseshit. Those insects I cited above don't seem to lead "disordered" lives. But then, they don't have other insects telling them they'll go to hell for doing what comes naturally.

swiatlo wrote:has no significance

Wrong. It drives a tank battalion through the specious pretensions of anti-gay bigots.

swiatlo wrote:in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder.

Except that your assertion that homosexuality is a "disorder" is complete horseshit. Because, wait for it, we have evidence that gay people lead perfectly happy, well-adjusted lives in several European nations, where Christofascist bigotry isn't a pervasive and poisonous issue. The only reason gay people are suffering in places like the USA, is because they're surrounded by Christofascist bigots constantly bombarding them with abuse, and in some cases threatening them with physical violence. Your pseudo-argument is every bit as specious in these circumstances, as the pseudo-argument that being black is "disordered" in an environment where black people are subject to vicious racial hatred.

Stop peddling the Christofascist Kool-Aid, it doesn't work here.

swiatlo wrote:What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind.

And you've studied how much biology, in order to be able to assert this?

swiatlo wrote:Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?

Apparently you've never heard of veterinary medicine. Keep digging that apologetic hole.

swiatlo wrote:Talking about sex addiction, like any other addiction (hypersexuality) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK.

Please, provide real scientific research supporting your implied assertion above, that homosexuality is "not OK". And by real scientific research, I don't mean made up shit from Christofascist hate groups and discredited quacks like Paul Cameron.

swiatlo wrote:Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder.

Except that there is NO "disorder" to recognise. This is a fabrication erected by Christofascist bigots, the sort of people who happily demonise anyone who doesn't conform to their petty little prejudices, and who resort to lies, slander and smears in order to prop up their bigoted fantasies.

To quote the poster recently erected on numerous billboards in the UK by Stonewall, "Some people are gay. Get over it".

swiatlo wrote:Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia and coprophagia. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation.

Please, your specious apologetic attempt to couple homosexuality to various outré practices is a familiar Christofascist smear tactic. It's one that NOM and its constituent bigots have been using for years, along with the discredited quack Paul Cameron.

swiatlo wrote:Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.

Please, do tell us all how telling gay people that they are an "abomination", and subjecting them to vicious abuse, constitutes "helping" them in any logically consistent universe?

swiatlo wrote:Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers.

No it isn't a fallacy. Once again, just because people happen not to conform to the diseased strictures of your nasty, worthless little mythology, doesn't make those people untermenschen. Learn this lesson sometime.

swiatlo wrote:This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.

Bollocks. The millions of gay people who lead happy, well-adjusted lives in numerous European countries, destroy your assertion.

swiatlo wrote:Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.

There's a difference between seeking treatment for a genuinely pathological condition, and being coerced and bullied into denying yourself because you're surrounded by Nazis For JesusTM.

swiatlo wrote:I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others.

Once again, your nasty little smear tactic is obvious. Specious and defamatory coupling of being gay to paedophilia is a familiar smear tactic used by the bigoted Christofascist Right.

swiatlo wrote:Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia).

In the case of paedophilia, it's classified as a disorder, because we have evidence for harm inflicted upon recipients of paedophile attentions. We have zero evidence for harm being inflicted upon consenting gay adults by other consenting gay adults. Is this elementary fact going to register with you sometime?

swiatlo wrote:You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

See above. Drop the Christofascist blinkers and ditch the bigotry.

Oh, if you want "disordered", try this. It's the description of the actions of one Dennis Rader, a former Lutheran church president, as uncovered by law enforcement investigating 10 serial murders. A supposedly "normal" heterosexual, Rader tortured and murdered 10 people, 8 of them women and girls, including 11-year old Josephine Otero, whom he described to his interrogators as his "star young maiden" as he explained his weird little version of the afterlife, in which he presided over helpless, bound women, torturing them for eternity. In Josephine Otero's case, he watched her slowly hanging, naked, in her basement, while masturbating over the dying girl. Semen samples he left behind after doing this helped convict him.

swiatlo wrote:Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity. This proves nothing, has no significance in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder. What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind. Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?
Talking about sex addiction, like any other addiction (hypersexuality) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK. Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder. Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia and coprophagia. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation. Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.
Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers. This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.
Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.
I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

Thanks for your concern but I haven't been doing much suffering lately. Kindly fuck off.

Not sure if that's a valid point, Cali. Just because you can find examples of Christians doing horrible things doesn't mean the church is evil. What are you saying with that?

Doesn't change the fact that the church is willing to spread lies about and campaign against gay people, for absolutely no reason other than the thought of two men falling in love and living a happy life sickens them. The church is fucked up.

swiatlo wrote:Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity. This proves nothing, has no significance in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder. What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind. Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?

1. A disorder is not defined by whether it's 'normal' withing human beings.
2. The point about gay animals is that it destroys the claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

swiatlo wrote:Talking about sex addiction, like any other addiction (hypersexuality) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK.

How does one practice homosexuality? Also you've failed to argue how homosexuality is wrong in principle, let alone in excess.

swiatlo wrote:Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder.

Indeed. Why do you bring it up then?

swiatlo wrote:Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia and coprophagia. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation. Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.

You still haven't shown how homosexuality is in any way comparable to the these two disorders, so your analogy is flawed.

swiatlo wrote:Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers. This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.

Not according to the evidence nor the experts.

swiatlo wrote:Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.
I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

Correction, you're the one claiming they're the same.
I could just as well ask this of you: Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist heterosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

I remember when being left handed was considered a disorder because it was not the norm. There were attempts to cure this disorder. Guess what? I didn't work.

CookieJon wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

How would a person who does despise homosexuals treat them differently to the way you have on this forum?

It's love Cookie, it's just love!

Love in the same way Josef Fritzl loved his daughter, sadly.

Fallible wrote:Who cares.

It is quite important.
The case boils down to 3 options I think:
1. Homosexuality is a disorder, something that can be cured if the person is determined or the case is not advance or complex.
2. Homosexuality is another form of normality, a part of human nature. Analogy would be a ginger hair or color of the skin. Something not subject or possible to change. Examples of people who have changed? That would be a miracle.
3. People who claim they are ex-gay and all therapists, they all lie or live in illusion.

Is there a scientific method to prove #3 is correct, because it would allow #2 stand without involving God. Option #1 is ruled out on the start by the camp of rational skeptics.

swiatlo wrote:

Fallible wrote:Who cares.

It is quite important.

No, I meant who cares if you can't see a reason. It's not our job to justify anything to you.

What you probably mean is that if you classify it as 'quite important', this somehow gives you license to stick your nose into other people's lives.

The case boils down to 3 options I think:
1. Homosexuality is a disorder, something that can be cured if the person is determined or the case is not advance or complex.
2. Homosexuality is another form of normality, a part of human nature. Analogy would be a ginger hair or color of the skin. A thing subject or possible to change. Examples of people who have changed would be miracles then.
3. People claiming they are ex-gay and all therapists, they all lie or live in illusion.

Is there a scientific method to prove #3 is correct, because it would allow #2 stand without involving God. Option #1 is ruled out on the start by the camp of rational skeptics.

Please, I beg of you - stop talking shit. Your post is practically incomprehensible. Option 1) as has been iterated ad nauseam does not hold up. Option 2) is so muddled I can't be bothered parsing it. Option 3) ditto. If you must persist in this line of reasoning, at least type something that makes sense in the English language.

type something that makes sense in the English language

Sorry for that.
I will try to rephrase it.

swiatlo wrote:... I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

Heterosexuality is a sexual attraction. Does this make it a disorder also? If it is a disorder why does it not require a 'cure,' and if it is not a disorder why is it not a disorder? What is the disorder-defining distinguisher between heterosexuality and homosexuality?

What part of "millions of gay people in Europe lead happy, well-adjusted lives" do you not understand, swiatlo? Which at a stroke destroys your assertion about homosexuality being a "disorder"?

The only reason gay people in the USA frequently don't enjoy the same status, is because they're surrounded by hate-filled bigots spreading lies about them, and in some cases threatening them with physical violence. Claiming that homosexuality is "disordered" in such circumstances is as specious as claiming that being black made you "inferior" in an environment where black people were being lynched by racist hate mobs.



See the above cartoon? This is the level of hatred and bigotry that is frequently manifested by the Christofascist Right in the USA. The evidence is provided by the bigots themselves, courtesy of their vile, Streicher-esque hate propaganda. Several high-profile politicians have peddled hate speech, and are on public record as doing so. For example, Rick "frothy mix" Santorum, who claimed that children were better off with convicted criminals as parents, than they were with law-abiding gay people as parents, an asinine claim if ever there was one. He also clapped and cheered as a fundamentalist preacher spewed forth more bile and vitriol at anyone who didn't conform to Christoascist diktat, and erected the tiresomely familiar and duplicitous apologetic conflation of homosexuality with bestiality, a trope that the Christofascist Right jerk off to on a regular basis.

Then of course, we have the repulsive Scott Lively, who openly boasted of having "detonated a nuclear bomb under the gay agenda" after his evil work in Uganda, where he helped push through a bill condemning gay people to death. He and other hate-filled bigots like him have money and political connections, enabling them to spread their hate speech, frequently enjoying under-the-table donations from the Republican Party.

In the pathological social environment of Christofascist America, it's no wonder gay people have a hard time leading well-adjusted lives, whilst surrounded by fucktards, bigots and vermin like this.

EDIT: Oh,and Scott Lively also wrote a scurrilous piece of historical revisionism called The Pink Swastika, which tried to rewrite history by claiming gays were behind the Nazi Party, an assertion that would be laughable if it were not a venomous lie. Gay people, far from being behind the Nazi Party, were rounded up and sent to concentration camps by SS and Gestapo thugs, and Lively's twisted attempt to rewrite history to fit his personal bigotries is yet another example of Christofascist hate speech at work.

THWOTH wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

That would seem to suggest that a homosexual male has a 'man addiction' and a homosexual female a 'woman addiction,' and that kind of sounds like a clinical, or psychological judgement. And yet, I presume, you would shy away from flatly declaring homosexuality a clinical or psychological dysfunction - would you?

Yep. Because I think it is a voluntary preference not a medical "condition''.

THWOTH wrote:...And if you do shy away from such a flat declaration then why do you think a clinical or psychological approach to curing gayfulship should be attempted on those grounds?

I dont think it should be attempted. The person who seeks sex therapy does. And my point is that they CHOOSE to...for whatever reason. (Duress, preference, love, life style choice, dissatisfaction with the status quo....)

THWOTH wrote:...Wouldn't attempting to modify peoples sexual proclivities by clinical and/or psychological means in circumstances where the individual was not clinically and/or psychologically diagnosed as dysfunctional amount to a kind of torture - even if the individual had either volunteered or actively sought out and paid for the cure?

No I dont think so. Its a choice. Heres a person, it's their life, they - for whatever reason - CHOOSE to explore the scientific menu options to ''treat'' their status quo ''condition''. The 2 questions are, a) can they choose to want to change and b) does medical science have the ability to modify (achieve outcomes) in relation to sexual desires. The plain fact is, that if I was a victim of rape trauma and my desired opposite gender attraction or libido was dysfunctional (in my opinion( then I could seek and probably obtain professional medical treatment. So why is SSA different to same sex aversion insofar as psychology?

THWOTH wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

I have a slight problem with this, not least because it implies an implicit definition of homosexuality not as description of gender attraction but as a action, as behaviour, and specifically a dysfunctional behaviour that warrants clinical intervention.

What exactly is the difference between ''behaviour'' and the word we use as a definition of that behaviour - homosexuality?

THWOTH wrote: I know you couch this in terms of 'choice,' but even in those who might choose to partake of this proposed medical intervention to modify their behaviour the question still remains as to why an individual -- or anybody else -- might consider the expression of a specific gender attraction as a problematic, unwanted behaviour that could or should be curbed by medical .

And theres the crux of the issue. I am not asking why a person might want to seek treatment for their misogyny, sex addiction or sex aversion or impotence, or anti-social fetish or...---> insert sex meme here<---

I am making an argument that personal choice actually exists in relation to these issues.

swiatlo wrote:

Fallible wrote:Who cares.

It is quite important.
The case boils down to 3 options I think:
1. Homosexuality is a disorder, something that can be cured if the person is determined or the case is not advance or complex.

Except the evidence and experts say otherwise, so option 3's out of the picture.

swiatlo wrote:2. Homosexuality is another form of normality, a part of human nature. Analogy would be a ginger hair or color of the skin. Something not subject or possible to change. Examples of people who have changed? That would be a miracle.

This, basically.

swiatlo wrote:3. People who claim they are ex-gay and all therapists, they all lie or live in illusion.

This 2.
So it's option 2 and 3.
Now wasn't that easy?

swiatlo wrote:Is there a scientific method to prove #3 is correct, because it would allow #2 stand without involving God. Option #1 is ruled out on the start by the camp of rational skeptics.

Option is ruled out from the start because there is no evidence to support and and ample evidence to debunk it.

Lion IRC wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

That would seem to suggest that a homosexual male has a 'man addiction' and a homosexual female a 'woman addiction,' and that kind of sounds like a clinical, or psychological judgement. And yet, I presume, you would shy away from flatly declaring homosexuality a clinical or psychological dysfunction - would you?

Yep. Because I think it is a voluntary preference not a medical "condition''.

A belief which you have yet to substantiate with evidence.

Lion IRC wrote:

THWOTH wrote:...And if you do shy away from such a flat declaration then why do you think a clinical or psychological approach to curing gayfulship should be attempted on those grounds?

I dont think it should be attempted. The person who seeks sex therapy does. And my point is that they CHOOSE to...for whatever reason. (Duress, preference, love, life style choice, dissatisfaction with the status quo....)

THWOTH wrote:...Wouldn't attempting to modify peoples sexual proclivities by clinical and/or psychological means in circumstances where the individual was not clinically and/or psychologically diagnosed as dysfunctional amount to a kind of torture - even if the individual had either volunteered or actively sought out and paid for the cure?

No I dont think so. Its a choice. Heres a person, it's their life, they - for whatever reason - CHOOSE to explore the scientific menu options to ''treat'' their status quo ''condition''. The 2 questions are, a) can they choose to want to change and b) does medical science have the ability to modify (achieve outcomes) in relation to sexual desires. The plain fact is, that if I was a victim of rape trauma and my desired opposite gender attraction or libido was dysfunctional (in my opinion( then I could seek and probably obtain professional medical treatment. So why is SSA different to same sex aversion insofar as psychology?

THWOTH wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

I have a slight problem with this, not least because it implies an implicit definition of homosexuality not as description of gender attraction but as a action, as behaviour, and specifically a dysfunctional behaviour that warrants clinical intervention.

What exactly is the difference between ''behaviour'' and the word we use as a definition of that behaviour - homosexuality?

THWOTH wrote: I know you couch this in terms of 'choice,' but even in those who might choose to partake of this proposed medical intervention to modify their behaviour the question still remains as to why an individual -- or anybody else -- might consider the expression of a specific gender attraction as a problematic, unwanted behaviour that could or should be curbed by medical .

And theres the crux of the issue. I am not asking why a person might want to seek treatment for their misogyny, sex addiction or sex aversion or impotence, or anti-social fetish or...---> insert sex meme here<---

I am making an argument that personal choice actually exists in relation to these issues.

Still confusing being pressured into therapy with choosing your sexuality, I see.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

That would seem to suggest that a homosexual male has a 'man addiction' and a homosexual female a 'woman addiction,' and that kind of sounds like a clinical, or psychological judgement. And yet, I presume, you would shy away from flatly declaring homosexuality a clinical or psychological dysfunction - would you?

Yep. Because I think it is a voluntary preference not a medical "condition''.

A belief which you have yet to substantiate with evidence.

Evidence?

You are asking a man who professes to believe humans exist because a magic sky wizard fed an apple to a talking snake for evidence?

You'd have as much luck asking your budgie to explain the breakup of the Roman Empire. This is manifestly not a man who trades in concepts such as 'evidence'.