PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon Lists Homosexuality As Disorder


Infiniti2001
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:22 PM
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.

The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard.

"Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 _ a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.

So Disrespectful
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:51 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".

Libertango
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:53 PM
OMG @ both posts. :eek: :sad: :banghead: :bolt:

kabuki
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:10 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".

In my world, self hate is a disorder. :D

jmd
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:24 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".



I would understand u

griffin
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:47 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.


This will sound more harsh than I mean it to, but personally I think the "disorder" is not your homosexuality, but your insecurity and inability to accept and like yourself as you are.

I'm sure it does affect your life, just like being a lesbian somtimes affects my life in ways I don't like - but that's because OTHER people have a problem and a "disorder" if you will, not because I do.

back on topic, I'd be curious to know when this classification was added to the Pentagon's list.

"Sluggy"
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:01 PM
I always thought it was kinda queer, but not a mental disorder really. Heck if 10% of the world is gay, how "disorderly" can it be? so no, i dont think it is a disorder, it's just a bit different, that's all.

alfajeffster
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:54 PM
Well, since it's a "disorder", and I had this disorder when I was in the military back in the 80s, does that mean I qualify for full Veteran's benefits because I had a mental "disorder" during active duty? I wonder what the Pentagon and the CDC's policy is on that little off-shoot of the labelling process.

Ferosh
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:57 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".

:retard:

jmd
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:47 PM
This will sound more harsh than I mean it to, but personally I think the "disorder" is not your homosexuality, but your insecurity and inability to accept and like yourself as you are.

I'm sure it does affect your life, just like being a lesbian somtimes affects my life in ways I don't like - but that's because OTHER people have a problem and a "disorder" if you will, not because I do.

back on topic, I'd be curious to know when this classification was added to the Pentagon's list.


no, donīt try to turn it around!

griffin
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:51 PM
no, donīt try to turn it around!

Why? You think encouraging self-hatred is better?

Geisha
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:54 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".

Well, with that logic think of how many "disorders" there are. Red heads, for example. They didn't choose to be redheaded, they don't want them to be redheaded, it affects their life because they can't get rid of their freckles and wear clothes that match their hair, it is the most unpopular natural hair colour.

jmd
Jun 20th, 2006, 05:46 PM
Well, with that logic think of how many "disorders" there are. Red heads, for example. They didn't choose to be redheaded, they don't want them to be redheaded, it affects their life because they can't get rid of their freckles and wear clothes that match their hair, it is the most unpopular natural hair colour.



both are true

Reuchlin
Jun 20th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Hello. I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but how do people view homosexuality in light of "other" sexual orientations: Polygamy, pedophilia. Outside of the fact that often (AND NOT ALWAYS) pedophiles hurt their victims, who are children-- they can also be termed another "orientation" and the same arguments used to justify homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle can be applied to polygamy and pedophilia. This question came up when I shared with someone information about that Dutch political group that centred their policies on being "pedo" friendly.

griffin
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:11 PM
Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation, it's a familial structure. As an aside, I don't really have a problem with it. So long as the people involved are aware of what's going on, and are capable of consenting in a meaningful way (they aren't coerced, they can really understand what they're consenting TO, it's not an exploitative situation, etc.), who am I to object? Same standard I apply to all intimate relationships.

Hmm, maybe that's not an aside...the objection to pedophilia is that kids really aren't in a position to truly consent when dealing with an adult.

controlfreak
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:33 PM
Well, in purely biological terms, homosexuals can't procreate - something which has alwas been a characteristic of every other living organism on the planet.... so it would definitely seem to be an unnatural condition. And if it's not based in the mind, then where is it based? The toes? So, homosexuality can be called a mental disorder... but it is one of the many that can be lived with comfortably, just like a fear of spiders, obsessive nose-picking, or a fried-chicken-based sexual fetish.

Maybe it can be "cured" like some other disorders - but we don't know because apparently it is not a debilitating disorder and there have not been many willing volunteers for the kind of research that would answer that question.

CanadianBoy21
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:42 PM
Early on in elementary school and through early years in high school I wanted to be heterosexual, to be straight and fit in. I felt very uncomfortable being gay and disconcealed and hid it. Through high school I had very very low self confidence and was depressed most the time actually now that I look back. In fact, I had no self confidence. In the first two years of University, I became so used to lying about anything relating to my sexuality, I became a master at it. But deep inside, I was slowly being ripped apart and torn into pieces. From last September it is my exchange in Germany. I realized what a fool I've been. I went back home in March, and for a week before I was to step on the flight back to Germany (where I am now until August) I decided I was going to say it on the day I fly back. So on that great day, I thought 'fuk it, fuk u all, and fuk everone else. I'm not going to live my life pleasing you or anybody for that matter.
I was rather furious but a good kind of determined furious, at myself of course. I told my family on that day, wrote to my best friends, friends, talked to my best friend, friend, etc... and told them 'I'm gay'
And I'm damn proud of it.

And if some idiots, like the above article, feel like they want to list homosexuality as a disorder, then they can go and shove that disorder up theirs.
All I know is that I will live like I want to. And all those who were gay before in much harder times, those who were killed, tortured, psychologically and physically, it is all owing to those people that I have this choice.

... I just realized I went totally off topic :o:topic: ... just felt the need to express myself.

Reuchlin
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Early on in elementary school and through early years in high school I wanted to be heterosexual, to be straight and fit in. I felt very uncomfortable being gay and disconcealed and hid it. Through high school I had very very low self confidence and was depressed most the time actually now that I look back. In fact, I had no self confidence. In the first two years of University, I became so used to lying about anything relating to my sexuality, I became a master at it. But deep inside, I was slowly being ripped apart and torn into pieces. From last September it is my exchange in Germany. I realized what a fool I've been. I went back home in March, and for a week before I was to step on the flight back to Germany (where I am now until August) I decided I was going to say it on the day I fly back. So on that great day, I thought 'fuk it, fuk u all, and fuk everone else. I'm not going to live my life pleasing you or anybody for that matter.
I was rather furious but a good kind of determined furious, at myself of course. I told my family on that day, wrote to my best friends, friends, talked to my best friend, friend, etc... and told them 'I'm gay'
And I'm damn proud of it.

And if some idiots, like the above article, feel like they want to list homosexuality as a disorder, then they can go and shove that disorder up theirs.
All I know is that I will live like I want to. And all those who were gay before in much harder times, those who were killed, tortured, psychologically and physically, it is all owing to those people that I have this choice.

... I just realized I went totally off topic :o ... just felt the need to express myself.

But I don't think classifying homosexuality as a 'disorder' or not really makes you any less of a person, or deserving of all the rights that ALL human beings should enjoy.

CanadianBoy21
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Well, in purely biological terms, homosexuals can't procreate - something which has alwas been a characteristic of every other living organism on the planet.... so it would definitely seem to be an unnatural condition. And if it's not based in the mind, then where is it based? The toes? So, homosexuality can be called a mental disorder... but it is one of the many that can be lived with comfortably, just like a fear of spiders, obsessive nose-picking, or a fried-chicken-based sexual fetish.

Maybe it can be "cured" like some other disorders - but we don't know because apparently it is not a debilitating disorder and there have not been many willing volunteers for the kind of research that would answer that question.

:lol:

Sorry, but I'll leave it at that.

:tape: :lol:

CanadianBoy21
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:48 PM
But I don't think classifying homosexuality as a 'disorder' or not really makes you any less of a person, or deserving of all the rights that ALL human beings enjoy.

You mean that ALL human beings SHOULD enjoy. Because in fact not a lot do-

Reuchlin
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:49 PM
You mean that ALL human beings SHOULD enjoy. Because in fact not a lot do-
thanks for pointing that out :D

griffin
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:55 PM
Well, in purely biological terms, homosexuals can't procreate - something which has alwas been a characteristic of every other living organism on the planet.... so it would definitely seem to be an unnatural condition. And if it's not based in the mind, then where is it based? The toes? So, homosexuality can be called a mental disorder... but it is one of the many that can be lived with comfortably, just like a fear of spiders, obsessive nose-picking, or a fried-chicken-based sexual fetish.

Maybe it can be "cured" like some other disorders - but we don't know because apparently it is not a debilitating disorder and there have not been many willing volunteers for the kind of research that would answer that question.

I have news for you, my ovaries and womb are in perfect working order - and to judge by the ridiculous number of gay people I know who are having kids these days, I'm not the only one. The other side of this, of course, is that large number of heterosexual folks ARE in fact infertile - so unless you're going to decide that they have a mental disorder as well?

People have tried to "cure" homosexuality for the better part of a century - some by more horrific means than others - it doesn't work, and that's not for lack of trying or lack of test subjects.

One of these days, scientists will probably figure out the biological origins of love as well - even how to mess with it. That this is possible doesn't mean love itself was disordered in the first place.

CanadianBoy21
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:19 PM
I have news for you, my ovaries and womb are in perfect working order - and to judge by the ridiculous number of gay people I know who are having kids these days, I'm not the only one. The other side of this, of course, is that large number of heterosexual folks ARE in fact infertile - so unless you're going to decide that they have a mental disorder as well?

People have tried to "cure" homosexuality for the better part of a century - some by more horrific means than others - it doesn't work, and that's not for lack of trying or lack of test subjects.

One of these days, scientists will probably figure out the biological origins of love as well - even how to mess with it. That this is possible doesn't mean love itself was disordered in the first place.

Excellent post.
If I could give u anymore good reps u'd get a lot of them, because you nailed it.

Scotso
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:28 PM
I am quite disorderly.... but my sexual orientation is not.

Helen Lawson
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:01 PM
I can totally procreate if I wanted to. I mean, if Little Masha got in contact with me and wanted to have a baby, I could "oblige" without the help of a lab, you know what I mean? And let's face it, if Venus called me with the same problem, I could throw her a "bone" too. In fact, if Amelie really wanted a baby, I'd go the "distance" for her. But that's about it for tennis players. I don't want Yuri in my life, so I take a pass on Big Masha, and the rest can go find some other guy to get help. Well, maybe Svetlana if she was real nice about it and turned out the lights.

SelesFan70
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:02 PM
I don't know if it's a mental disorder, or just "out of order" from what society deems normal (rightly or wrongly).

All I can do is continue to be gay since I am sure I was born gay. :wavey:

griffin
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:08 PM
I don't know if it's a mental disorder, or just "out of order" from what society deems normal (rightly or wrongly).

All I can do is continue to be gay since I am sure I was born gay. :wavey:

And you're doing a damn fine job of it, if I may say ;)

Kart
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:19 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

Are you sure that's you and not the world around you talking ?

Society on the whole does not embrace homosexuality.

That does not make it a disorder.

SelesFan70
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:53 PM
And you're doing a damn fine job of it, if I may say ;)

:kiss: :wavey:

leviathane
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:02 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".

OMG you need to see again you analyst :tape: it's not because you are affect to be gay that itis a menatl disorder. People who have big noise could be affect it's no a mental disorder.
You are gay, nothing to do, no medics to change your orientation. I 'm so sorry for you :sad:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:14 PM
It is a mental disorder. Despite what anyone says, I didn't choose to be this way, I don't want to be this way and I feel that it affects my life and is not within the realms of normality. Therefore I also accept it as a disorder.

However, I don't agree with the mentioned "policy".
I don't like quite a few things about myself. Is everything that I don't like and would change if I could to be considered a disorder now?

jmd
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:30 PM
i think they can cure gay people, for does who want to be changed

Crazy Canuck
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:42 PM
Hello. I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but how do people view homosexuality in light of "other" sexual orientations: Polygamy, pedophilia. Outside of the fact that often (AND NOT ALWAYS) pedophiles hurt their victims, who are children-- they can also be termed another "orientation" and the same arguments used to justify homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle can be applied to polygamy and pedophilia. This question came up when I shared with someone information about that Dutch political group that centred their policies on being "pedo" friendly.
Pedophiles tend to have a sexual preference.

ZAK
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:45 PM
I think it could be viewed as a disorder in the sense that sex is for reproduction, biologically speaking, two members of the same sex can't reproduce

ZAK
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:46 PM
is that large number of heterosexual folks ARE in fact infertile - so unless you're going to decide that they have a mental disorder as well?

Not a mental disorder, but some sort of disorder that makes them infertile

hablo
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:47 PM
i think they can cure gay people, for does who want to be changed
so what is the supposed 'cure' ?

miffedmax
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Let's see. An organization headed by an amoral, incompetent, meglomaniac who's leadership has been rated by at least one military historian as being the most incompetent since Varus lost his three legions has decided that my brother, a good number of my real life friends and virtual WTA world friends have a mental disorder.

Well, well, well.

Infiniti2001
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:04 PM
I don't know if it's a mental disorder, or just "out of order" from what society deems normal (rightly or wrongly).

All I can do is continue to be gay since I am sure I was born gay. :wavey:


Personally , I think it's time we got Republicanism classified as a mental disorder :shrug:

Joana
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:05 PM
Judging by some comments in this thread all people who for some reason do not want to procreate have some kind of mental disorder.

TennisFan75
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:08 PM
The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Does this mean I can get a disability check? hell.. if im gonna be discriminated against, the least they could do is send some cash... :devil:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:13 PM
I think it could be viewed as a disorder in the sense that sex is for reproduction, biologically speaking, two members of the same sex can't reproduce
So do people who have sex using birth control, condom's, etc., who have zero interest and almost zero possibility of reproducing in this case... have a disoder?

Crazy Canuck
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:14 PM
i think they can cure gay people, for does who want to be changed
Oh? Do bestow your expertise on us. How is it that they do this?

Crazy Canuck
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:15 PM
Personally , I think it's time we got Republicanism classified as a mental disorder :shrug:
To be fair, we'd then have to classify "hippie' as a mental disorder as well ;)

Crazy Canuck
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Does this mean I can get a disability check? hell.. if im gonna be discriminated against, the least they could do is send some cash... :devil:
On that note, maybe gay people should be allowed to apply to universities as "special applicants". I mean, since they apparently have a disorder, it's only fair that they get the same treatment that us ADHD folk get. ;)

jmd
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:05 AM
Oh? Do bestow your expertise on us. How is it that they do this?


with terapy, or hormones and stuff.

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:14 AM
Well, with that logic think of how many "disorders" there are. Red heads, for example. They didn't choose to be redheaded, they don't want them to be redheaded, it affects their life because they can't get rid of their freckles and wear clothes that match their hair, it is the most unpopular natural hair colour.
well that is different...

being a ginger is a disorder. being a lesbian is just sexy shit. lesbians taste like candy :drool: :lick: :lick:

the truth about gingers and daywalkers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0TcYbQFdfo

P.s. for those of you without a sense of humor i am just kidding about gingers... maybe ( :devil: :lol: )

Pheobo
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:20 AM
Well, I think being a politician is a disorder. So THERE!

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:28 AM
Hello. I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but how do people view homosexuality in light of "other" sexual orientations: Polygamy, pedophilia. Outside of the fact that often (AND NOT ALWAYS) pedophiles hurt their victims, who are children-- they can also be termed another "orientation" and the same arguments used to justify homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle can be applied to polygamy and pedophilia. This question came up when I shared with someone information about that Dutch political group that centred their policies on being "pedo" friendly.
:rolleyes:
retarded things in this post:
1-polygamy, pedophilia are not orientations. one is a household structure, the other is child molestion.
2-pedophilia DOES ALWAYS hurt their child victims, to say otherwise is pretty twisted, besides being completely untrue.
3- pedophiles and polygamy are NEVER, EVER termed "sexual orientations". EVER. (because thats not want they are. :wavey: )
4- fine. you are ignorant and dishonest, don't care. but that really is no reason to lump regular people with child molesters. THAT annoys the Jiggly. NOT COOL MAN!! NOT COOL!!
5- those nut jobs have nothing to do with gays or this article. see point #4.

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:36 AM
Well, in purely biological terms, homosexuals can't procreate - something which has alwas been a characteristic of every other living organism on the planet.... so it would definitely seem to be an unnatural condition. And if it's not based in the mind, then where is it based? The toes? So, homosexuality can be called a mental disorder... but it is one of the many that can be lived with comfortably, just like a fear of spiders, obsessive nose-picking, or a fried-chicken-based sexual fetish.

Maybe it can be "cured" like some other disorders - but we don't know because apparently it is not a debilitating disorder and there have not been many willing volunteers for the kind of research that would answer that question.

nah, homosexual behavior has been seen thought the natural world (which does mean it cant be unnatural) and sciencists are still working on theories about what perposes it serves in the natural world. in some species they say it helps with bonding... (hmmm lesbian bonding, sounds good to me) in others they say it helps in carring for orphaned young, and so on. personally in humans i think it does wonders of bonding ;) :lick: and what fun bonding it is.

charmedRic
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:45 AM
This will sound more harsh than I mean it to, but personally I think the "disorder" is not your homosexuality, but your insecurity and inability to accept and like yourself as you are.

I'm sure it does affect your life, just like being a lesbian somtimes affects my life in ways I don't like - but that's because OTHER people have a problem and a "disorder" if you will, not because I do.

back on topic, I'd be curious to know when this classification was added to the Pentagon's list.

Ditto.

bionic71
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:54 AM
Well, in purely biological terms, homosexuals can't procreate - something which has alwas been a characteristic of every other living organism on the planet.... so it would definitely seem to be an unnatural condition. And if it's not based in the mind, then where is it based? The toes? So, homosexuality can be called a mental disorder... but it is one of the many that can be lived with comfortably, just like a fear of spiders, obsessive nose-picking, or a fried-chicken-based sexual fetish.

Maybe it can be "cured" like some other disorders - but we don't know because apparently it is not a debilitating disorder and there have not been many willing volunteers for the kind of research that would answer that question.


Haven't we been here before....I love the old "unnatural" arguments.

It pure biological terms I am perfectly able to procreate...all of my bits are in perfect working order.

I also love how geing gay is often thrown into a nice little box with pedophilia and a whole host of other sexual perversions by many people....makes me feel all warm and fuzzy...and hightlights a true and disturbing ignorance.

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:02 AM
with terapy, or hormones and stuff.

You are so ignorant. You are saying things you've heard, but you haven't done even the slightest bit of investigation.

dav abu
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:02 AM
homosexuality a disorder? what a sad fucking world we live in at times!?! iliketennis all I can say is I feel sorry for you and not because you are gay. What is normal anyway - being statistically average? fuck that!

Crazy Canuck
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:02 AM
with terapy, or hormones and stuff.
Oh. I guess I missed all those valid scientific studies.

My bad.

Joana
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:09 AM
Oh. I guess I missed all those valid scientific studies.

My bad.

You should check them out, hormones and therapy are OK, but stuff is really effective.

Number19
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:10 AM
How does this "homosexual disorder" affect someone's ability to fight for their country?

I need some logic here.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:11 AM
How does this "homosexual disorder" affect someone's ability to fight for their country?

I need some logic here.
If anything, you'd think that the homophobes would be more than happy to allow homosexuals to sign up for the opportunity to stand in front of a loaded weapon... no?

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:12 AM
Straight people have be maligning us and attacking us for thousands of years. Nothing new under the sun with this Pentagon story. And honestly, do we really care what the Pentagon says about us. That's one of the most corrupt, evil organizations on the planet.

The thing I hate is when people lump homosexuality together with pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. My parents always used to say that if they allowed gays to marry, they'd start allowing people to marry dogs, apples, and motorcycles. What a load of nonsense! Can a dog enter into a contact? :rolleyes:

And the pedophilia thing is just unfair. Molesting a child is wrong, but two adults in a consenting sexual relationship ... why the hell do people care? Why does it bother people so much? There are lesbians and gays out there making love right now? Honestly, how is that affecting the people that hate them?

Crazy Canuck
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:14 AM
Straight people have be maligning us and attacking us for thousands of years. Nothing new under the sun with this Pentagon story. And honestly, do we really care what the Pentagon says about us. That's one of the most corrupt, evil organizations on the planet.

The thing I hate is when people lump homosexuality together with pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. My parents always used to say that if they allowed gays to marry, they'd start allowing people to marry dogs, apples, and motorcycles. What a load of nonsense! Can a dog enter into a contact? :rolleyes:

And the pedophilia thing is just unfair. Molesting a child is wrong, but two adults in a consenting sexual relationship ... why the hell do people care? Why does it bother people so much? There are lesbians and gays out there making love right now? Honestly, how is that affecting the people that hate them?
It's not.

It's just that the people who hate them are sad, pitiful little creatures that have nothing better to do than piss and moan about things they don't happen to like but have zero control over.

Well, that's what most of them are like.

It's the pitiful creatures with power that y'all gotta watch out for.

tterb
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:15 AM
Oh. I guess I missed all those valid scientific studies.

My bad.
:lol:

You should check them out, hormones and therapy are OK, but stuff is really effective.
:haha:

Stop it, you two, you're killing me! :D

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:16 AM
How does this "homosexual disorder" affect someone's ability to fight for their country?

I need some logic here.

Well, if you are gay, you are obviously going to try to rape your fellow soldiers. I mean, you hear about that happening ALL THE TIME, a gay man raping a poor, innocent straight man!!! :rolleyes:

Side note: why is it that the uglier and nastier a straight guy is, the more he says things about gay people like, "They better not hit on me!" It's like, damn, honey, with that uni-brow, back fat, and underbite, don't worry!

Ferosh
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:18 AM
Well, if you are gay, you are obviously going to try to rape your fellow soldiers. I mean, you hear about that happening ALL THE TIME, a gay man raping a poor, innocent straight man!!! :rolleyes:

Side note: why is it that the uglier and nastier a straight guy is, the more he says things about gay people like, "They better not hit on me!" It's like, damn, honey, with that uni-brow, back fat, and underbite, don't worry!

Tell me about it. It's always the ugly, fat and sweaty motherfuckers that think I'm going to rape them.

partbrit
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:18 AM
If you pay any attention to the Kinsey scale and even more to Fritz Klein's evidence, then it is apparent that the state of sexuality we call homosexuality is indeed part of the "norm." When you add up the people who identify as homosexual with the people who are homosexual (most of the religious right, I'm starting to think) but do not identify with it, and the people who are bisexual, you wind up with a pretty big list.

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:18 AM
You should check them out, hormones and therapy are OK, but stuff is really effective.

That was the wittiest post of the year. :worship:

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:22 AM
Tell me about it. It's always the ugly, fat and sweaty motherfuckers that think I'm going to rape them.

Yeah, it's hilarious. I even told a straight guy once that he was fugly as hell and that I wouldn't have sex with him for $100,000, and he still went on and on about how he knew I wanted to fuck him.

Ugh! The biggest irony of all is that usually the most HATED gay men are the very flaming ones, and they tend to be bottoms and are not even capable of raping someone! :lol:

dementieva's fan
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:23 AM
That was the wittiest post of the year. :worship:
I didn't get it :o

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:25 AM
with terapy, or hormones and stuff.

She said that therapy and hormones are okay, but "stuff" is really effective. Get it now?

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:12 AM
She said that therapy and hormones are okay, but "stuff" is really effective. Get it now?
:confused: now i am more confused... what "stuff"? i feel :retard:

dementieva's fan
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:16 AM
:confused: now i am more confused... what "stuff"? i feel :retard:
I know, I'm feeling the same here, guess I'm not too bright :o

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:28 AM
:lol: It's sarcasm. Joana was making fun of the poster saying "stuff", because they don't know what they are talking about.

bionic71
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:29 AM
I know, I'm feeling the same here, guess I'm not too bright :o

Trust me...it was witty, sarcastic and most appreciated....:)

therapy, hormones and stuff.....such a comment showcases with great accuracy the ignorance that many people harbour on the subject....and the absolute rubbish that is often used to argue their position

Its like saying... I don't think its right (being gay) because it is unnatural and stuff....

Ferosh
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:30 AM
:lol: @ dementieva's fan & Jigglypuff

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:31 AM
Trust me...it was witty, sarcastic and most appreciated....:)

therapy, hormones and stuff.....such a comment showcases with great accuracy the ignorance that many people harbour on the subject....and the absolute rubbish that is often used to argue their position

Its like saying... I don't think its right (being gay) because it is unnatural and stuff....
ohhhhhh i get it now.. :o

bionic71
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:32 AM
ohhhhhh i get it now.. :o

hallelujah!;) :) :kiss:

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:34 AM
:lol: @ dementieva's fan & Jigglypuff
:sad: :sad: dont laff at me. :sad: i am samrt!!

Wannabeknowitall
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:35 AM
Should I really be that shocked? The Pentagon has been using inaccurate old maps for over a decade. They've been using inaccurate intelligence for even longer. Why would I be shocked if they're using psychiatry books from the 1970s?

Mother_Marjorie
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:36 AM
The Pentagon, the heartbeat of the US military, which has over time killed millions of human beings, classifies being gay as a "disorder"????? I personally think chronic murdering is a psychological disorder.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill." However, no where in the Ten Commandments does it state "Thou Shalt Not Be Gay."

Sounds like to me that someone in the top brass of the Pentagon is having a J. Edgar Hoover moment.

bionic71
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:38 AM
Should I really be that shocked? The Pentagon has been using inaccurate old maps for over a decade. They've been using inaccurate intelligence for even longer. Why would I be shocked if they're using psychiatry books from the 1970s?

Odd (or no so odd!) that such info "comes to light" just after the recent gay marriage debate etc... All of this "disorder" and "unnatural" nonsense feeds those that are already strongly oppossed to gay people, gay unions etc...

Cage
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:45 AM
i always thought i was crazy but not for being gay

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:00 AM
I find it really ironic that most hate directed towards gays stems from fear. Imo, some people are scared that if gays are allowed to be normal, and allowed to have the same rights as everybody else, the world will not fall apart ( contrary to what those people would have you believe) and they'll then be faced with their own homophobia. Right now, all this stuff about homosexuality being a disorder, and gays not being allowed to get married, adopt kids, etc.. is just to justify the opinion of a bunch of bigots.

I live in Canada where, for the moment at least, gays can marry and, *gasp* our country hasn't fallen apart. As far as I can tell, homosexual marriage hasn't ruined heterosexual marriage. I don't know any hetero's who haven't been able to get married because of gay marriage, nor have I heard anybody request to marry a farm animal or an inanimate object. As for the it's not natural arguement, is there any arguement except that two men, or two women, cannot together reproduce? And that's a fine arguement, except that I don't see anybody asking that we take away the rights of women who've had ovarian cancer or men who've had testicular cancer because they now can't reproduce. And anyway, somebody said earlier about examples of homosexuality in the animal world, which is where we usually look to determine what is indeed natural.

It's just all so ridiculous.... I hope I can see the day where the world's opinion on this is the same as what the ( majority) of the world's opinion is now on the treatment of women and people of a visible minority.

Kenny
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:47 AM
Well, with that logic think of how many "disorders" there are. Red heads, for example. They didn't choose to be redheaded, they don't want them to be redheaded, it affects their life because they can't get rid of their freckles and wear clothes that match their hair, it is the most unpopular natural hair colour.

Excuse me? Use another example, please! I love my freckles. I love the clothes that match my skin tones and my hair. In my world, it's the most popuplar. Everyone loves my hair color. I love being a redhead.


:rolleyes:

Kenny
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:50 AM
well that is different...

being a ginger is a disorder. being a lesbian is just sexy shit. lesbians taste like candy :drool: :lick: :lick:

the truth about gingers and daywalkers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0TcYbQFdfo

P.s. for those of you without a sense of humor i am just kidding about gingers... maybe ( :devil: :lol: )


:angel: We all know being a ginger is not a disorder!

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:57 AM
Excuse me? Use another example, please! I love my freckles. I love the clothes that match my skin tones and my hair. In my world, it's the most popuplar. Everyone loves my hair color. I love being a redhead.


:rolleyes:
really...hmmm...

http://www.edoug.com/images/HelpTheseGingerKids.jpg
although ginger kids scare me... i dont know how i feel about helping find a cure, they might get mad and .....

i fear this will happen :scared: :scared:
http://www.punkasspunk.com/videolog/20051116/South_Park_[Ginger_Kids]_(2005)_5.jpg

:bolt:

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:59 AM
:angel: We all know being a ginger is not a disorder!
south park does not lie!!

did you know earth is really a reality tv show. and if you put food up your butt you can poop out your mouth. it's true. i learned it on south park. and of course south park does not lie. :lol: :lol: :bounce: :lol:

jochem
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:58 AM
Well, with that logic think of how many "disorders" there are. Red heads, for example. They didn't choose to be redheaded, they don't want them to be redheaded, it affects their life because they can't get rid of their freckles and wear clothes that match their hair, it is the most unpopular natural hair colour.

Haircolour is who you are from the outside, homosexuality is who you are from the inside... The first you can change to a certain degree, the second you can't....

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:50 PM
I don't think homosexuality is as much of a mental disorder as it is a spiritual disorder and a violation of the natural intentions and affections of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex. For everything good and natural, there is a contradicting opponent that trys to thwart the original creation. We were born into a hedonistic world. If it feels good, taste good, etc., we think it's ok to experience it without anyone's objection. Just because something feels good or is pleasing to the eye means that it was designed for that purpose. The mind is a very powerful organ and what a man thinks himself to be, is who he becomes. Since I believe that homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, I believe that it and other like tendencies, both learned and inherited, can only be overcome by spiritual means.

bionic71
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:13 PM
I don't think homosexuality is as much of a mental disorder as it is a spiritual disorder and a violation of the natural intentions and affections of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex. For everything good and natural, there is a contradicting opponent that trys to thwart the original creation. We were born into a hedonistic world. If it feels good, taste good, etc., we think it's ok to experience it without anyone's objection. Just because something feels good or is pleasing to the eye means that it was designed for that purpose. The mind is a very powerful organ and what a man thinks himself to be, is who he becomes. Since I believe that homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, I believe that it and other like tendencies, both learned and inherited, can only be overcome by spiritual means.

Oh dear...
"good and natural vs hedonistic violations"
I can't summons the energy to reply to this one at all........

alfajeffster
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:21 PM
Oh dear...
"good and natural vs hedonistic violations"
I can't summons the energy to reply to this one at all........

Just look up into the branches of that tree you're sitting under, Sir Isaac, and go ahead- grab yourself a fruit and take a big bite. It's okay, we have denturgrip in case your serpent fangs decide to stay in the apple.

Now, on to Eastern religions and their views on "homosexuality". I wonder, is Shiva Nataranj male or female, and what is the sex of the infant of ignorance she is dancing upon?

bionic71
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:40 PM
Just look up into the branches of that tree you're sitting under, Sir Isaac, and go ahead- grab yourself a fruit and take a big bite. It's okay, we have denturgrip in case your serpent fangs decide to stay in the apple.

Now, on to Eastern religions and their views on "homosexuality". I wonder, is Shiva Nataranj male or female, and what is the sex of the infant of ignorance she is dancing upon?

;)
Is it not "Nataraj"....
I always thought he/she was male.
I think raj is sanskrit for King...so male me thinks...lol.

ah...the dance of bliss...and its triumph over ignorance, evil and chaos...
If all it took was a bit of a boogie to erradicate and cleanse some of the hogwash I have read here...I'd be carving up the dancefloor as we speak.

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:08 PM
I don't think homosexuality is as much of a mental disorder as it is a spiritual disorder and a violation of the natural intentions and affections of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex. For everything good and natural, there is a contradicting opponent that trys to thwart the original creation. We were born into a hedonistic world. If it feels good, taste good, etc., we think it's ok to experience it without anyone's objection. Just because something feels good or is pleasing to the eye means that it was designed for that purpose. The mind is a very powerful organ and what a man thinks himself to be, is who he becomes. Since I believe that homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, I believe that it and other like tendencies, both learned and inherited, can only be overcome by spiritual means.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Geisha
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:12 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't even bother with him. How do you know how another man thinks until you've walked in their shoes? :wavey:

Geisha
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:14 PM
Like Oprah once said to someone who told her that she was "tired" of homosexuals and their antics:

"You know what I'm 'tired' of? I'm tired of heterosexual males sexually abusing children. That's what I'm tired of."

Let's look at the real issues here.

Geisha
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:16 PM
Haircolour is who you are from the outside, homosexuality is who you are from the inside... The first you can change to a certain degree, the second you can't....

I understand, but they both have the same...consequences?

BTW, I didn't mean to offend the redheads - I <3 them, too. Just using it as an example.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:24 PM
Oh dear...
"good and natural vs hedonistic violations"
I can't summons the energy to reply to this one at all........

It's funny how people want others to have the energy to hear their views and tolerate their issues and they in turn don't afford others the same privilege. It's also interesting that the mere mention of creation in the context of homosexuality draws intolerance from those who so desparately demand it. And the most articulate response I've heard is from those who can do no better than roll their eyes at a thought that is not like their own. That's a true sign of intellectual debate. :rolleyes:

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:50 PM
I don't think homosexuality is as much of a mental disorder as it is a spiritual disorder and a violation of the natural intentions and affections of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex. For everything good and natural, there is a contradicting opponent that trys to thwart the original creation. We were born into a hedonistic world. If it feels good, taste good, etc., we think it's ok to experience it without anyone's objection. Just because something feels good or is pleasing to the eye means that it was designed for that purpose. The mind is a very powerful organ and what a man thinks himself to be, is who he becomes. Since I believe that homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, I believe that it and other like tendencies, both learned and inherited, can only be overcome by spiritual means.

Well, so you think nobody should have sex then, because the number of people doing it purely for "hedonistic purposes" as you call it (not for the sole purpose of procreation) would be huge. Maybe we shouldn't have condoms either, because that's not natural and hedonistic? What about oral sex/anal sex for heterosexul couples - and how many do you think there are? Is that unnatural too? I think "heterosexual sex is pleasurable, but that's fine because it's for procreation" is such a tired argument.

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:53 PM
It's funny how people want others to have the energy to hear their views and tolerate their issues and they in turn don't afford others the same privilege. It also interesting that the mere mention of creation in the context of homosexuality draws intolerance from those who so desparately demand it. And the most articulate response I've heard is from those who can do no better than roll their eyes at a thought that is not like their own. That's a true sign of intellectual debate. :rolleyes:

It's not like we could debate you anyway. You believe dogma, and it's impossible to argue with dogma.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:26 PM
Well, so you think nobody should have sex then, because the number of people doing it purely for "hedonistic purposes" as you call it (not for the sole purpose of procreation) would be huge. Maybe we shouldn't have condoms either, because that's not natural and hedonistic? What about oral sex/anal sex for heterosexul couples - and how many do you think there are? Is that unnatural too? I think "heterosexual sex is pleasurable, but that's fine because it's for procreation" is such a tired argument.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I think sex is a beautiful thing when done the way it was intended. Even the bedroom of a married male and female can be defiled, but that's another topic. As far as "natural" sex, any physician will tell you that the anus was not designed for penetration. Just because people want to use it for their own sexaul gratification doesn't change the fact that it was designed that way.

And by the way, is it just me or do I detect hostility in these responses? Why is that people who are pro-gay resort to hostility when someone disagree with their lifestlye?

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:28 PM
It's not like we could debate you anyway. You believe dogma, and it's impossible to argue with dogma.

Oh, I see. It's dogma because it's not what you believe. Well, is what you believe dogma? :)

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:36 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I think sex is a beautiful thing when done the way it was intended. Even the bedroom of a married male and female can be defiled, but that's another topic. As far as "natural" sex, any physician will tell you that the anus was not designed for penetration. Just because people want to use it for their own sexaul gratification doesn't change the fact that it was designed that way.

I didn't put words in your mouth, but you still haven't answered my question. If sex wasn't designed solely for pleasure (which is what you did say), then people who are doing it for pleasure should stop having sex altogether. Anything else makes you look hypocritical.

And by the way, is it just me or do I detect hostility in these responses? Why is that people who are pro-gay resort to hostility when someone disagree with their lifestlye?

Maybe because they consider your views offensive and hypocritical?

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:38 PM
The anus wasn't "designed" for penetration? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

marmite1
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:46 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I think sex is a beautiful thing when done the way it was intended. Even the bedroom of a married male and female can be defiled, but that's another topic. As far as "natural" sex, any physician will tell you that the anus was not designed for penetration. Just because people want to use it for their own sexaul gratification doesn't change the fact that it was designed that way.

And by the way, is it just me or do I detect hostility in these responses? Why is that people who are pro-gay resort to hostility when someone disagree with their lifestlye?

I've seen this problematic argument so many times before. The sexual organs of humans were not designed for such and such, therefore it is unnatural and what is unnatural is wrong.

This argument is false. Rachels' in 'The Elements of Moral Philosophy' he completely destroys this argument. His counter-argument is: normatively people use different body parts for purposes other than what they were naturally made for. A good example that Rachels' gives is: using our eyes for flirtation or to give signals. He points out that their 'natural' purpose is for sense-perceptions. According to your argument, it would be wrong for anyone to use our eyes for anything other than sense-perceptions. There are other examples of this to back up this point. One example I can think of is using our hands to write with. The original 'natural' purpose of our hands wasn't for holding a pen or a pencil to write/draw with. According to your argument people who draw or write with their hands are morally wrong. Can you see how wrong this argument is?

To your 2nd point. I think the reason people are hostile is because homosexuals have been treated disgustingly throughout history. Thus, when they are attacked they will automatically become defensive. Why shouldnt they?

"Sluggy"
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:47 PM
someone said you cant change sexual preferences, i dont think that is true. If you are strongly and always have been attracted to the same sex, it is very hard to change. If you have feelings in both directions, you can change. that's just my opinion though.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:11 PM
I didn't put words in your mouth, but you still haven't answered my question. If sex wasn't designed solely for pleasure (which is what you did say), then people who are doing it for pleasure should stop having sex altogether. Anything else makes you look hypocritical.

No, sex was not designed solely for pleasure although the act is pleasurable. Sex was designed to procreation and for the edification of marriage. I don't believe in sex outside of male and female marriage.

I've seen this problematic argument so many times before. The sexual organs of humans were not designed for such and such, therefore it is unnatural and what is unnatural is wrong.

This argument is false. Rachels' in 'The Elements of Moral Philosophy' he completely destroys this argument. His counter-argument is: normatively people use different body parts for purposes other than what they were naturally made for. A good example that Rachels' gives is: using our eyes for flirtation or to give signals. He points out that their 'natural' purpose is for sense-perceptions. According to your argument, it would be wrong for anyone to use our eyes for anything other than sense-perceptions. There are other examples of this to back up this point. One example I can think of is using our hands to write with. The original 'natural' purpose of our hands wasn't for holding a pen or a pencil to write/draw with. According to your argument people who draw or write with their hands are morally wrong. Can you see how wrong this argument is?

To your 2nd point. I think the reason people are hostile is because homosexuals have been treated disgustingly throughout history. Thus, when they are attacked they will automatically become defensive. Why shouldnt they?

I don't know this Rachel person, but I think that hands and eyes weren't limited to one sole purpose just like sex is not limited to just pleasure or just creation. Eyes have been described as windows to the soul, therefore they were also created for communication.

As far as how homosexuals have been treated in history, what does that have to do with me? That's like trying to justify hating all whites today for what their ancestors have done to blacks and what some currently do to blacks today.

griffin
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:21 PM
No, sex was not designed solely for pleasure although the act is pleasurable. Sex was designed to procreation and for the edification of marriage.


Oh horseshit. Sex between humans existed long before marriage - in any form, let alone the current incarnation - existed.

You're entitled to your views, people, but it's easier to get them taken seriously and respected when you don't try to back them up with crackpot theories as proof.

marmite1
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:41 PM
No, sex was not designed solely for pleasure although the act is pleasurable. Sex was designed to procreation and for the edification of marriage. I don't believe in sex outside of male and female marriage.



I don't know this Rachel person, but I think that hands and eyes weren't limited to one sole purpose just like sex is not limited to just pleasure or just creation. Eyes have been described as windows to the soul, therefore they were also created for communication.

As far as how homosexuals have been treated in history, what does that have to do with me? That's like trying to justify hating all whites today for what their ancestors have done to blacks and what some currently do to blacks today.

Why do you think that? Do you have any evidence for it? Lets just say, hypothetically speaking, that you are right about the hands and eyes example. What about feet then? Surely you can see that the 'natural' purpose of feet is to walk/move. Now, what about when people write with their feet. This doesn't clearly fit what its natural purpose is. Thus, writing with your feet would be wrong according to you. This leads again to a problem with your argument. Moreover, I dont think that you are correct about hands and eyes. If we look at evolution, it seems plain that their were set 'natural' purposes for them. Either way, the writing with feet scenario is sufficient enough to prove the obsurdity of your argument.

People don't hate people for attacking homosexuality. Thus, your example is complete krap. They are simply being hostile. This doesnt equate to personal attacks. Nor, do i advocate personal attacks in order to defend their point of view.

The Crow
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:44 PM
Sex was designed ... for the edification of marriage.

:lol: :lol: Tell that to my dog when he's shagging his bitch :D

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:49 PM
:lol: :lol: Tell that to my dog when he's shagging his bitch :D

That's just it. Although many humans act like dogs and other animals with their inability to concern their hedonistic desires they weren't created to live as such.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:52 PM
People don't hate people for attacking homosexuality. Thus, your example is complete krap. They are simply being hostile. This doesnt equate to personal attacks. Nor, do i advocate personal attacks in order to defend their point of view.

:scratch: Speaking of krap, this make no sense to me at all.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:54 PM
Oh horseshit. Sex between humans existed long before marriage - in any form, let alone the current incarnation - existed.

You're entitled to your views, people, but it's easier to get them taken seriously and respected when you don't try to back them up with crackpot theories as proof.

I suppose you created the first humans and performed the first marriage. You appear to the expert in horse manure. :rolleyes:

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:58 PM
As far as how homosexuals have been treated in history, what does that have to do with me? That's like trying to justify hating all whites today for what their ancestors have done to blacks and what some currently do to blacks today.

That example could not be less acurate. If people are acting hostile towards you, it's because of the ways gays have been treated historically AND because you're continuing that line of thought. It would be akin to how a currently white, racist person would be received, not simply how a white person would be received.

alfajeffster
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:58 PM
I suppose you created the first humans and performed the first marriage...

Not before Eve fucked her sons, but who knows, Lillith may have been the family concubine all along, only she wasn't pretty enough for Jewish men to have written fables about.

The Crow
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:07 PM
That's just it. Although many humans act like dogs and other animals with their inability to concern their hedonistic desires they weren't created to live as such.

Are you for real? Maybe you shouldn't post on this board either, because obviously humans were not created to 'have fun'. :rolleyes: I mean, wouldn't God have created the internet if he wanted it to be here?

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:07 PM
That example could not be less acurate. If people are acting hostile towards you, it's because of the ways gays have been treated historically AND because you're continuing that line of thought. It would be akin to how a currently white, racist person would be received, not simply how a white person would be received.

Nice response. However, my line of thought is not akin to racist thinking anymore than it is for someone to say they don't date outside of their race. Is that racism or is it just that they're not attracted to people of the different persuasion?

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:07 PM
I just spent an entire year at school studying nature and what is natural to us and the one thing it seems all the people I studied can agree on is that we are currently very far removed from whatever our natural state is. Which isn't to say that it's wrong to stride for returning to our natural state however people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If sex if for procreation only, then it's just as wrong for heterosexuals to have sex for pleasure as it is for homosexuals to have sex. That mean that people who hold this opinion should be against any form of birth control, be it condoms, the pill, or anything else. They should also be against infertile people having sex. And that's just looking at one aspect of our lives and what is natural there. One could very much argue that anybody posting on a message board on the internet isn't exactly doing what's natural.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:11 PM
Are you for real? Maybe you shouldn't post on this board either, because obviously humans were not created to 'have fun'. :rolleyes: I mean, wouldn't God have created the internet if he wanted it to be here?

I'm very real and I love fun. God didn't create the internet, but he created man and gave him the necessary intellect to invent, explore, and even to have fun. :kiss:

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:16 PM
I just spent an entire year at school studying nature and what is natural to us and the one thing it seems all the people I studied can agree on is that we are currently very far removed from whatever our natural state is. Which isn't to say that it's wrong to stride for returning to our natural state however people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If sex if for procreation only, then it's just as wrong for heterosexuals to have sex for pleasure as it is for homosexuals to have sex. That mean that people who hold this opinion should be against any form of birth control, be it condoms, the pill, or anything else. They should also be against infertile people having sex. And that's just looking at one aspect of our lives and what is natural there. One could very much argue that anybody posting on a message board on the internet isn't exactly doing what's natural.

Please re-read my posts. Never have I said that sex is for pleasure alone. I also agree that we are far removed from our natural and original intentions. You seem like a reasonable person, therefore I can't understand why you would consider communicating on the internet unnatural. Even so, far be it for me to consider myself naturally perfect. :) I'll have to continue this conversation later. My lunch is over and need to something else that natural...work.

:wavey:

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:20 PM
Nice response. However, my line of thought is not akin to racist thinking anymore than it is for someone to say they don't date outside of their race. Is that racism or is it just that they're not attracted to people of the different persuasion?

Just to be clear, you're the one who compared the two, not me. However thinking homosexuality is some kind of disease is closer to being racist than it is to dating outside your race. As for the issue of not dating outside your race, it could be racism or it could be that your life played out in a way that you never met somebody outside your race you were attracted to.

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:23 PM
I don't think homosexuality is as much of a mental disorder as it is a spiritual disorder and a violation of the natural intentions and affections of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex. For everything good and natural, there is a contradicting opponent that trys to thwart the original creation. We were born into a hedonistic world. If it feels good, taste good, etc., we think it's ok to experience it without anyone's objection. Just because something feels good or is pleasing to the eye means that it was designed for that purpose. The mind is a very powerful organ and what a man thinks himself to be, is who he becomes. Since I believe that homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, I believe that it and other like tendencies, both learned and inherited, can only be overcome by spiritual means.
:smash:

:haha: ignorance at its finest. :haha:

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:37 PM
Please re-read my posts. Never have I said that sex is for pleasure alone.

So you must agree then when people have sex purely for pleasure, it's wrong? Again, this means couples should stop having sex, if they aren't interested in procreation? And sex is what holds marriages together? :lol: Ooooooookay.

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:38 PM
Please re-read my posts. Never have I said that sex is for pleasure alone. I also agree that we are far removed from our natural and original intentions. You seem like a reasonable person, therefore I can't understand why you would consider communicating on the internet unnatural. Even so, far be it for me to consider myself naturally perfect. :) I'll have to continue this conversation later. My lunch is over and need to something else that natural...work.

:wavey:

When you get back, please tell me what your opinion is, because now I'm confused. I didn't mention anything about you thinking sex was for pleasure alone, I mentioned the complete opposite. I thought your position was homosexuality is not natural therefore it is a disease. And I thought your reason for saying it wasn't natural was because two men, or two women, cannot together procreate and that it the purpose of sex, to procreate. Which, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't homophobic, just religious, would mean that you also do not think people should use condoms or any form of birth control while having sex because that sex cannot then create a child, which is the purpose of sex. The same should then be said for heterosexual couples where one, or both, parties are infertile for whatever reason. It's not natural for them to be having sex, therefore they shouldn't be doing it.

Looking at what's natural and what's not is a whole other issue. The obvious answer to why the internet would be unnatural is because it did not exist in our natural state.

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:45 PM
When you get back, please tell me what your opinion is, because now I'm confused. I didn't mention anything about you thinking sex was for pleasure alone, I mentioned the complete opposite. I thought your position was homosexuality is not natural therefore it is a disease. And I thought your reason for saying it wasn't natural was because two men, or two women, cannot together procreate and that it the purpose of sex, to procreate. Which, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't homophobic, just religious, would mean that you also do not think people should use condoms or any form of birth control while having sex because that sex cannot then create a child, which is the purpose of sex. The same should then be said for heterosexual couples where one, or both, parties are infertile for whatever reason. It's not natural for them to be having sex, therefore they shouldn't be doing it.

Indeed. I was confused by his response as well - when he said he didn't mean sex was solely for pleasure. I don't think you said anywhere it was for pleasure only. The point is - if it's not solely for pleasure, then is having it solely for pleasure wrong?

griffin
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:07 PM
I suppose you created the first humans and performed the first marriage.
No, I just pulled my head out of my ass long enough to read a few history books.

You appear to the expert in horse manure. :rolleyes:

Yes, and I should thank you for providing such an ample quantity for study.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:30 PM
So you must agree then when people have sex purely for pleasure, it's wrong? Again, this means couples should stop having sex, if they aren't interested in procreation? And sex is what holds marriages together? :lol: Ooooooookay.

You know, reading comprehension is vital in today's world. Here are my words: No, sex was not designed solely for pleasure although the act is pleasurable. Sex was designed to procreation and for the edification of marriage. I don't believe in sex outside of male and female marriage.

I'll type slowing so that you can understand. Sex was designed for married couples and for the purposes of procreation and edification (uplifting, build, establish). It happens to be pleasurable too.

ignorance at its finest.
What are you three years old? Does it make you people feel better about yourselves to disparage others with name calling?

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:31 PM
No, I just pulled my head out of my ass long enough to read a few history books. :kiss:

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:31 PM
I'll type slowing so that you can understand. Sex was designed for married couples and for the purposes of procreation and edification (uplifting, build, establish). It happens to be pleasurable too.

You are still ignoring the question about sex which is solely for pleasure and not just for procreation.

cellophane
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:36 PM
If you want to talk about sex being designed to build families or whatever, it just doesn't make any sense to me as a theory. Sex doesn't in any way enourage monogamy, quite the opposite I'd say.

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:39 PM
No, sex was not designed solely for pleasure although the act is pleasurable. Sex was designed to procreation and for the edification of marriage.

holy shit you are stupid as hell.

damn, this is my question, how do people who are this stupid not get eaten by wolves? like you would think since we are talking about nature here, that being this stupid a bear or something would take you, and spare us all by removing you from the gene pool.

ok i should NOT Have to say this. but since you are clearly too stupid to figure it out yourself. sex has been around for millions of years, marriage of course, came in the last 3 thousand years. sex was NOT intended as something to have within a marriage because sex was around millions of years before marriage.

what sex was or was not designed for HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. ITS REALLY FUCKING SIMPLE. SEX WAS AROUND MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MARRIAGE. TO SAY THAT SEX WAS DESIGNED FOR MARRIAGE IS NOTHING SHORT OF UTTER IDIOCY.

p.s. watch this person say that this response has something to do with homosexuality or some other random shit. watch them completely ignore the fact that sex was around millions of years before marriage, therefore what sex was DESIGNED to do has nothing to do (nor has it ever had anything to do) with marriage.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:45 PM
holy shit you are stupid as hell.

damn, this is my question, how do people who are this stupid not get eaten by wolves? like you would think since were are talking about nature here, that being this stupid a bear or something would take you, and spare us all by removing you from the gene pool.

ok i should NOT Have to say this. but since you are clearly too stupid to figure it out yourself. sex has been around for millions of years, marriage of course cam in the last 3 thousand years. sex was NOT intended as something to have within a marriage because sex was around millions of years before marriage.

what sex was or was not designed for HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. ITS REALLY FUCKING SIMPLE. SEX WAS AROUND MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MARRIAGE. TO SAY THAT SEX WAS DESIGNED FOR MARRIAGE IS NOTHING SHORT OF UTTER IDIOCY.

p.s. watch this person say that this response has something to do with homosexuality or some other random shit. watch them completely ignore the fact that sex was around millions of years before marriage, therefore what sex was DESIGNED to do has nothing to do (nor has it ever had anything to do) with marriage.

I refuse to stoop to your level and resort to name calling. If you are unable to contribute to an intelligent debate without three year old behavior then just leave the thread.

Have a great day!!

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:58 PM
I refuse to stoop to your level and resort to name calling. If you are unable to contribute to an intelligent debate without three year old behavior then just leave the thread.

Have a great day!!
what fucking ever. just an excuse to avoid dealing with being called on your bullshit.

when you say shit that stupid you GET NO RESPECT. none. not only that, you dont get to call others anything. seriously. fucking retard. sex was designed for marriage... thats got to be the stupidest shit. where is natural selection when we need it most... :confused: :lol:

yeah, i have long ago left the place in my life where i thought that being polite and kind to this level of stupidity helps. all it does is encourage the idiocy. there is nothing i or anyone can do to help you see the basic idiocy of what you are saying, because its not about that. its bullshit dogma and no amount of logic, irrefutable fact, kindness or good reason is going to get in that thick skull.

tonythetiger
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:27 PM
what fucking ever. just an excuse to avoid dealing with being called on your bullshit.

when you say shit that stupid you GET NO RESPECT. none. not only that, you dont get to call others anything. seriously. fucking retard. sex was designed for marriage... thats got to be the stupidest shit. where is natural selection when we need it most... :confused: :lol:

yeah, i have long ago left the place in my life where i thought that being polite and kind to this level of stupidity helps. all it does is encourage the idiocy. there is nothing i or anyone can do to help you see the basic idiocy of what you are saying, because its not about that. its bullshit dogma and no amount of logic, irrefutable fact, kindness or good reason is going to get in that thick skull.

:lol: Coming from a person with such a limited vocabulary they have to resort to senseless profanity. You're a genius. :kiss: God help us.

CanadianBoy21
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:46 PM
Speaking of mental disorders, can you spot the poster who shows the traits of a person who has mental disorder (and this is an insult to those who have to cope with it).













tonythetiger


:tape:


Should we really be arguing with someone who seems to be still in elementary school?

Wigglytuff
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:52 PM
:lol: Coming from a person with such a limited vocabulary they have to resort to senseless profanity. You're a genius. :kiss: God help us.

1-aint a resort, i always use profanity. its tasty.
2-still aint address the issue. sex was not defined by marriage, to say so is utter fucking bullshit.
3-dont talk bad about my smarts. it cant end well for you. ask JR what happened to him.
to make a long story short, i offered to have my IQ test results from the well respected St. Johns Medical Center. (its not nice to brag about being in the top 3 percentile but he made me do it.) He insulted my english, i remind him that english is not my first, or second language, its my third. he gets PWNED. you already got pwned, dont get double pwned.

Johno_uk
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:09 PM
with terapy, or hormones and stuff.

Oh my God you are sooo :dumb: I don't feel it is worth commenting further.

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:20 PM
tonythetiger, you've managed to make yourself appear to be the poor little victim here but you still haven't answered my earlier question ( posed right before you left for lunch, as your luck would have it) about what exactly your position is. Since you're such a fan of simplicity, I'll ask my question as simply as I can:

Do you believe people should have sex ONLY for procreation? Nevermind anything about pleasure, we'll get to that later depending on what you believe.

Andy_
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:27 PM
I will just say this much: on May 17th, 1990, the World Health Organization eventually erased homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.

16 years later the Pentagon comes up with this... I pride myself of laughing at them and I feel happy with my being this utterly disordered :cool:

Johno_uk
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:54 PM
Dear Tony the Tiger,

"I don't believe in homosexual sex"

If you don't believe in homosexual sex, then I'm sure it is quite easy to live without having either to a) have it b) watch people having it.

I on the other hand have twice been exposed to heteros doing it "in the open" :help: and countless times on tv. Think of how scarring this could be...

Why do you care so much about homosexual people do anyway; I don't want to impose my lifestyle on you, I simply want to have the same rights as anyone else and not be discriminated against.

You can tell be it's a spiritual disorder as much as you like, truth is my "spirit" has never been more happy until I settled down in a long term relationship. You can't possibly know how gay people feel or think, so you can't possibly know what kind of disorder it is. You have probably been brought up thinking like you do; but it's still no excuse for your ignorance; why would animals also practice homosexuality if it is so unnatural and God dissaproves of it? How can you know what God's opinion on homosexuality is anyway. Cos the church says so: the church doesn't know what it thinks on homosexuality, depends which church is. Anyone who listens to the church on issues of sexuality though :retard:, the catholic church in Ireland for example is or was rife with paedophilia. Hence not the best people to judge on sexual issues. Also you have no idea what God, should he exists thinks of homosexuality. If he is a fair God; then I'm sure he has no problem with it, as I am not willing to live a life of unhappiness because of how I was born. I think the main problem God would have as a matter of fact is people discriminatig and spiting against other human beings as is the case with many homophobics.

Also just because you are "religious" does not give you the right to judge what is and isn't natural; and whether sex was designed for marriage. You have have this opinion as much as you like, but unless you have some solid arguments to back it up, it just makes you look spitful to gay people.

To the poster who asked whether you are homophobic or religious; just beacuse people want to use the protection of organised religion for their spitful arguments, it doesn't make them any less homophobic.

Jakeev
Jun 21st, 2006, 09:09 PM
Well if the Pentagon considers being gay a disorder than humanity is doomed considering how many people within the Pentagon itself are gay:eek:


:lol: :lol:

angele87
Jun 21st, 2006, 09:09 PM
To the poster who asked whether you are homophobic or religious; just beacuse people want to use the protection of organised religion for their spitful arguments, it doesn't make them any less homophobic.

I just want to address this because I'm one of the people who mentioned this. I just want to clear up my position a little bit. I'm not religious and do not believe in organized religion of any kind, I prefer to think on my own. However, I respect a religious opinion so long as it makes sense. I don't believe that the only reason people should get married and have sex is to procreate but I'm ok with somebody believing otherwise for religious reasons so long as they aren't bias in their opinions. If gays shouldn't be able to marry for the reason mentioned above, neither should people who are infertile for any given reason. This opinion should also expand to methods of birth control. Not only should these people be against the use of birth control, they should be against people currently using birth control getting married. Having said that, I've never encountered one single person who holds this opinion so it's quite probable that it's only an opinion of somebody in theory and that in reality, a lot of people are using religion to cover up severe cases of homophobia.

LoveFifteen
Jun 21st, 2006, 09:50 PM
I'm very real and I love fun. God didn't create the internet, but he created man and gave him the necessary intellect to invent, explore, and even to have fun. :kiss:

Mmmmm, I love it when a man has the necessary intellect to explore my ass with his rock-hard cock. :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

bionic71
Jun 22nd, 2006, 12:09 AM
It's funny how people want others to have the energy to hear their views and tolerate their issues and they in turn don't afford others the same privilege. It's also interesting that the mere mention of creation in the context of homosexuality draws intolerance from those who so desparately demand it. And the most articulate response I've heard is from those who can do no better than roll their eyes at a thought that is not like their own. That's a true sign of intellectual debate. :rolleyes:

You obviously haven't read many of my responses to posts such as yours....rolling my eyes is not the way I approach such vitriolic nonsense.

There was nothing vaguely intellectual about your original post or any that have followed since. What you have provided in your posts is a perfect example of ignorance and twisted "logic"...nothing more.

alfajeffster
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:44 PM
The whole religious direction this thread has taken reminds me of those Dr. Seuss characters running around in separate groups- some with stars on their bellies, other, less desireables without. You can't procreate? Harrumph!

LoveFifteen
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:37 PM
The whole religious direction this thread has taken reminds me of those Dr. Seuss characters running around in separate groups- some with stars on their bellies, other, less desireables without. You can't procreate? Harrumph!

Horton Hears a Homo

One Swish, Two Swish, Spread This, Screw This

The Nutter Battle Book

The Cat in the Gucci Hat

Jocks in Socks

Yertle the Infertile :o

borisy
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:58 PM
Well, in purely biological terms, homosexuals can't procreate - something which has alwas been a characteristic of every other living organism on the planet.... so it would definitely seem to be an unnatural condition. And if it's not based in the mind, then where is it based? The toes? So, homosexuality can be called a mental disorder... but it is one of the many that can be lived with comfortably, just like a fear of spiders, obsessive nose-picking, or a fried-chicken-based sexual fetish.

Maybe it can be "cured" like some other disorders - but we don't know because apparently it is not a debilitating disorder and there have not been many willing volunteers for the kind of research that would answer that question.

That's why there are homosexual acts in animals too. What is your IQ?

Kenny
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:25 AM
Originally Posted by tonythetiger
No, sex was not designed solely for pleasure although the act is pleasurable. Sex was designed to procreation and for the edification of marriage.

I just can't stand reading a sentence like this. You meant to say.. Sex was designed for procreation OR Sex was designed for humans to procreate.

:shrug:

marmite1
Jun 23rd, 2006, 11:13 AM
:scratch: Speaking of krap, this make no sense to me at all.

Why is that? I said your example is wrong because using an example of hate where in this instance there isnt hate is rubbish. Being defensive is not a morally wrong thing to be. This is what people are like on this board.

marmite1
Jun 23rd, 2006, 11:14 AM
I love how you completely avoid most of my post! Especially the bit which completely defeats your argument. Oh well, I guess its easier to pretend that your right :P