Neither you nor your homophobia are entertaining in the least. Nor am I even remotely interested in your sexuality. Your remark about "avoidance strategies" for homosexuality has crystallized your bigotry in a New York Minute. You walked into it chin-first, bubelah. I suggest you stop the charade and admit to your intolerance — or fear.
And now I get why you've harped on the Josef Mengele analogy in this thread. He must be one of your role models.
Discussing homosexuality doesn't make one homophobic
Of course not. But favoring "avoidance strategies" sure as hell does. Give it up, you blew your cover and confirmed what several here have suspected you of for some time.
Nor am I even remotely interested in your sexuality.
No, just obsessed by it - it's on record.
Try again, km. I couldn't care less if you like men, women, or aarvarks. It's your hypocrisy and bigotry that — thankyouverymuch, Mr. Avoidance Strategy — I don't have to call out any longer. You've now put the spotlight on it all by yourself!
Conditions for which people seek treatment are best avoided irrespective of your bigoted agenda.
So you consider homosexuality a "condition". As in a malady or illness of some sort? You're using your keyboard like a shovel, and your hole just keeps getting deeper, and deeper, and deeper. And yes, I'm bigoted. Against bigots like you.
More homophobia, more slander.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... You should change your name to Daffy. Give it up, km. You're denials just aren't cutting it anymore. Your rationalizations are desperate, and translucent as plastic wrap.
But here's the upside. Not only am I done with this endless TLIP fuster cluck of a thread, I no longer have to call out your homophobia and hypocrisy. You yourself have set that in stone for all to see. Mazeltov, Daffy.
We have to draw a distinction between activism and genuine science. Your link is an example of gay activism because it’s not even-handed in its evaluation of alternative arguments.
For those who did not bother clicking on the links, the first link I posted in my last response was to a general discussion on Sexual Orientation on WebMD's website. The part I chose was specific to Homo-and-Bi-sexuality. I could have made the quote bigger by also adding the first part:
"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation (including homosexuality and bisexuality) is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors. In other words, there are many factors that contribute to a person's sexual orientation, and the factors may be different for different people."
(That, BTW, also proves that the enviroment a person is raised in can contribute to a person's sexuality, as he was suggesting . Enviroment, however, is hardly the biggest factor in a person's sexuality, although it can definitely have an impact on how this person treats who and what they are.)
Originally Posted By: keymaker
The article appears to contradict the experience of those who have stated otherwise and consider themselves to have been successfully treated or to have cured themselves, such as old wotsisname Guiseppe Povia.
An entertainer makes a song about his personal experience with curing himself and two other people "from the dreaded disease of homosexuality?" That's a more reliable source than thousands of doctor's arguments?
Before you go on and speak about how I am contradicting myself, let me remind you that I've specifically said - and am fully aware of it - that history is rife with mistakes of majorities being wrong. I am of a personal opinion, therefore, that if you're going to claim something, you have a mountain of data to back that claim. I've already supplied the first part of the mountain with the second link I posted, whose backup is the Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans they took of various people during a study done in Sweden. The next part of that mountain was also mentioned in the article: The discovery found by neuroscientist Simon LeVay, PhD of the difference in Hypothalamus and Anterior Commissure between gay and straight men and women.
That's not to say that he didn't "Cure" himself or the two others he "helped" of Homosexuality; Even with an almost 20-year-gap between the original findings and today, we're only hitting the tip of the iceberg in both understanding sexual orientation and neuroscience. (I'd like to see an MRI of the three men, as well as some of the others who've claimed to have been cured or cured themselves of their sexuality - or better yet, find a few people willing to try to cure themselves and take MRI's of them as Homosexuals and them after they try to change to Heterosexuals. I believe you'd find a lot of answers as to if you're born that way or not.)
I have two thoughts for you to think about. The first is that, with the openness and rapidly-available media sources out there, chances are there are people who are sexually confused but think they're gay when they really aren't. This is something similar to something I've grown up with all my life: assumptions on the reasons for my obesity. (I will not get into specifics, but I am working to get away from being Morbidly Obese - which any fat person can tell you is not as easy as people think it is.) Some people have insisted, in spite of doctors not finding anything to specifically say as such, that I have had a glandular problem since I was a child, and that I was born with it in my DNA. The problem is, I've proven that to be wrong on a number of different occasions in my life, and while I've never been thin, I have proven that I am capable of losing large amounts of weight. I've always known my problems with weight loss as well: Depression, bad habits, being lazy. DNA may have a factor in the sense that both of my parents were overweight, but I've been bigger than I am now, and have been bigger than both of my parents combined at a couple of points. I have to put up with this, however, because people hear snippets on the news or read something in newspapers or online. (It gets annoying fast, BTW!)
The second thought was inspired by a movie I saw in 2001 called "A Beautiful Mind." The movie was about John Forbes Nash, a mathematician who overcame years of suffering through schizophrenia, and suffered without medication since 1970. (I highly recommend the film, as it was both entertaining and interesting to Watch Russell Crowe play him.) The thought I had was about being able to deal with the cards you are dealt in life - As I've stated before, some people are born the way they are, and have no choice over what they feel or experience as a result of it. You may not be able to stop feeling what you do, but I think you can control how you react to it, especially if you believe or know it is a problem. I suspect, if these three guys are truly gay, that this is what has happened: They know what they feel, but they've learned to deal and cope with that to learn to be with a female companion instead of a male one. Given how gay people are often treated, I would say that this may be the case.
(Or, because he is a professional singer, he could just be full of it, telling a lie to entertain the masses who choose to believe it. After all, another famous singer died in 1991 after hiding his sexuality for many years under the public eye - Freddie Mercury, lead singer of Queen. Until he revealed his sexuality, very people knew that he was - in spite of the signs in the music videos and shows, especially "I Want To Break Free," of his homosexual lifestyle. )
Originally Posted By: keymaker
I don’t think anyone’s automatically attaching blame to persons with those impulses... one would hope they’re treatable.
I could call you out for arguing against the arguments I brought up earlier, but I think you have a different set of arguments on that. In any case, though, I certainly hope there is as well - I can just imagine the news of hearing the guy who liked humping vehicles having to go to the ER because his thing got chopped off while doing it. (Kinda reminds me of the joke about the guy and the pickle slicer...)
Originally Posted By: keymaker
My blueprint offers a test for what is and what is not morally acceptable. If you think that certain local practices that it disallows should be admitted, or vice versa, why not re-word it to get the result you would like?
Because, as much as we as individuals would like to believe that our plans, beliefs, and systems are foolproof and flawless, they are not - and usually when they are, it is only because no one has found a way to challenge or beat them yet. (Isn't it funny how difficult human beings can be with each other?)
Your "blueprint" is not foolproof, in spite that no one, myself included, has found that crack or flaw to prove it so. If it was, don't you think it'd be more widely accepted by people?
I did notice something just now: You didn't pull anything from the other post I put up immediately after the one you pulled most of my quotes from. Am I missing that?
So you consider homosexuality a "condition". As in a malady or illness of some sort?
Don't take offense to this, but I've been thinking that the medical community and science considers homosexuality in general to be a condition or disease, in that if the main reason why we mate, hook up, and have sex with individuals is for the purpose of procreating at some point, what is the point of same-sex couples who can't reproduce a child in that manner? Why else, beyond public/societal pressure, would people look for a cure?
Man and woman aren't perfect, but we (as humans) were made the way that we are for a purpose - I'd just like to understand, if it isn't a disease, just what purpose in life there is to being gay. (No offense to any people who are gay, BTW - I'm looking at it from a many different points.)
So the experiments would be wrong if people willingly volunteered to do them? Yes, people were willing to do it in Aushwitz - but only because the alternative was something they believed was far worse. As it turns out, they sometimes put themselves into worse situations.
I take the view that a medical experiment would be wrong even on a person freely volunteering unless it offered the best chance of avoiding something worse for that individual.
Your reasoning is very similar to some religious beliefs and arguments that I have heard - hence the assumption.
Nature is a lot older than the known religions, of course. They adopted the pre-existing minimum content of accepted morality because it was supposedly ordained by God but which secular observers only say are necessary for survival of the species. In this way the believer's point of reference and my own is in nature itself so it’s not surprising that there would be a coincidence of outcome: whereas a Christian would demand that ‘thou shalt not kill’ for example I would say that wilful killing is immoral because it’s unnatural - but the end result is the same.
Necessity is not a test or the test: it is exactly what it is.
Yeah, a test, but not a very good one. There has to be way of resolving what's acceptable when people disagree about what's necessary.
The reason why it's a debate is that there are certain factors involved with ESC that they can't get from the other kinds - and if I were to guess, it'd be the ability to be molded to the needs of the user at a fast speed.
You seem to be assuming that a particular procedure is justified simply because there’s no other way of achieving the desired result. A society is going to get into all sorts of trouble with a principle like that. Some scientists claim for example that animal experiments are justifiable because inanimate procedures would be less reliable than human tests. In some cases primates are used to replicate as closely as possible the results that could be expected from human tests. Your principle allows the human tests, whether voluntary or enforced. Mine prevents all of ‘em because they involve the risk of harm.
favoring "avoidance strategies" sure as hell does.
Doesn't actually, it's humanitarian.
you blew your cover...
Trust me, everything I post on these boards is quite deliberate. Getting back to the substance rather than to personalisations - anything that causes misery should be avoided and avoidance measures should be available to those who seek them.
I couldn't care less if you like men, women, or aarvarks.
Is that why you embarked on the following nauseating campaign of innuendo? -
"Just don't tell him Jack Daniels® is Gay."
"Who cares what one's sexual orientation is, or why?.... Ok, so we know one person who does"
"Most of us left I know you are but what am I? back in the 3rd grade. What happened to you?"
"But welcomed it back recently because you thought if it worked for you when you were a wee tyke, why not now?"
"Some can play dumb and get away with it. Not you, though."
"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... "
Your intolerance and homophobia is there for all to see, and that's just in the last 24 hours... I've got one simple message for you regarding my sexuality - mind your own business.
You're right about the philosophical framework of asking the purpose of life. For me, life has no "purpose" other than whatever the individual defines for him- or herself. Some of those purposes are local and temporary (my "purpose" at this point in my life is to get my son launched into life with as much forward impetus as possible) and some are more comprehensive (I'd hope my "purpose" is to lead what I consider to be a just life, which among other things means not taking advantage of my power and authority--something for which I've been mocked in this thread, but them's the breaks). But I do not assume that my "purpose" goes beyond me and my effect, however limited, on those around me. I do not believe that there's a "purpose to life." In a really global, universal sense, the "purpose" of life is life itself. It's a good in itself, and needs no further "purpose" or justification.
I once thought it was a shame that, having performed its evolutionary function, mold still hung around to make my life miserable. Having very recently enjoyed and reenjoyed my Stilton, I now know that mold is a positive good.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.