Whatever our differences may be, you Sarah Palin-loving-groupie, you are a credit to your religion. I enjoyed reading your rebuttals, so much so, that I don't feel the need to offer my 2c on the matter
so you call a homophobic a credible source when he is in the 1% minority of his profession that disagrees with the other 99% of his peers? you are laughable.
For those still unsure, this thread was started to get back at me for my thread about Israel. Nothing to do with what he believes, it's called payback. I still haven't worked if this thread should even fit in Politics or Religion?
I was being facetious when I used the word homophobe, but I can see you are not. Is it your normal practice to use ad hominem attacks against dissenting opinion? Here is a quick profile of the author of the article I suspect you didnt read, since it addressed homophobia. I'd like to thank you, though, for demonstrating exactly how political the issue is. When the bell curve came out, everyone immediately called the author a racist. It would seem we should be able to discuss the merit of these ideas, or lack thereof, without name calling. If I misunderstood your post, and you were in fact trying to imply it is the International Journal of Epidemiology, put out by the Oxford Journal, that is homophobic, please let me know so we can address the issue. Otherwise, I'm excited to hear anything you have to say in dispute of the good Dr. Satinover's many points. Oh, and 1.5% is 50% more than 1%, so please quote the right statistic . Whats not to like? Mamma Grizzly 2012
Payback? I thought I was doing you a favor, since you said you missed all the drama around here post departure of our forum trolls. On the bright side, this discussion has a lot more legitimacy than trying to call Israel's defense of itself as being "up to it again". A legitimate debate makes me happy, controversy makes you happy, we should all be happy here .
Breathing produces something called free radicals in the human body. So does exercising and eating. Free radicals destroy normal healthy cells in the human body. But if one certain group of people were much more likely to have a problem with free radicals and breathing ( I will call it "oxyditis". ) would it then be pathological ? Yes. Most any allopathic doctor would agree that they would have a "free radical breathing problem" and start looking for a drug to prevent it. It would not be normal because it is not in line with good health. But it is possible to replace that red word above with any word. Smoking is pathological for some more than others. Why is that ? Some can live to age 80 and then get lung cancer from smoking. Some only last until age 25 or so...
Exactly. I didn't say I was unhappy or even offended by this thread, because i'm not. In fact I think it's funny to see a few idiots even trying to back up the idiotic sentiment. I really just wanted people to be aware that this thread wasn't a serious discussion in the eyes of the OP so they're not wasting their time arguing a point you won't give in to. All are free to add their input but it makes it more fun if the OP actually believes in what he says, so we can at least have a chance of having them see some logic. At least I believe Israel is overstepping their mark again. I notice you didn't put up much of a defence for them, as of course there isn't any. Your tactic is to change the subject instead of debating any valid points.
I wrongly assumed you knew the definition, It's hardly my fault - though not surprising - that you don't. Maybe you should pick another word, you know, one that accurately describes what it is you're trying to convey. Pathology is the study of disease. Sorry about that, but it just is. You said "Any species that was "exclusively" homosexual would very quickly become extinct", which is not the case, as you admit now that homosexuals can, and do, reproduce and that there is nothing about being homosexual that prevents individuals from reproducing. There's no need to throw a tantrum because your own words were used to prove that you are wrong, and that you knew you were wrong, which also makes you dishonest. Do you still maintain that homosexuality, the sexual attraction to the same gender, would quickly lead to extinction? Even though i can give you case after case of homosexuals reproducing and that you openly admit that it can, and does, happen? I don't know what you're talking about here, i can only assume it's a pathetic attempt to obfuscate the topic because you know how amazingly well i'm schooling you on it. When you say something and are proven wrong, start ranting about something else, right?
@Stox: I won't even waste the time to paste in your quote since have now resorted to restating your misquote and twist of the facts, much like a petulant child. Perhaps you lack the understanding of what it would mean for a species to be "exclusively homosexual". Perhaps you think some species on earth, other than man has mastered has mastered invitro and reproduction in a test tube. Whatever the source of your misconceptions may be, they are a distraction to the thread unless you are a homosexual and your are demonstrating that confusion is another aspect of the condition. Now run along and have your debate about the word "pathology" with someone who cares. Whatever the goal was, it was certainly not to offend. Mission accomplished? You mean a few other idiots... beside me. LoL. Now thats not very nice. As I mentioned earlier, its possible to debate an issue without name calling. Samantha already called the youngest person ever to have delivered the William James Lectures at Harvard a homophobe, but I don't think any of us would consider him an idiot out of hand. Curious that I haven't heard anyone counter any of his points. I don't think you have any real evidence that I don't believe the side of the argument I've taken on this thread. To be fair, you took the same side of the argument early on, when you stated that you didn't consider ADD or Sex Addiction to be pathological. What you effectively said was, a sex addict is no less sick than you are. Now how is it that I do not believe what I am saying when you clearly do? For the record, I stand behind, and genuinely agree with your statement . I know you believe that, and I dismissed it for lack of factual evidence. At least have the courtesy to twist a few facts in support of your argument like Stox does, so we can have a debate about it. Perhaps that was what you were doing when you put the title, "Israel at it again" on a news article discussing Israel's response to attacks by Hamas? By the way, I see you started a thread about Qaddhafi being dead. I found myself asking why you choose thread titles for which there is literally no factual basis. The only answer I can come up with is a love of drama. Another pathology, or one aspect of the current one?
Homosexuality is a choice, not a pathology. A choice just like heterosexuality, bisexuality or what have you.
Yea, but where does it end ? Bestiality ?, trees ?, rocks ?...? Morality is a choice. People choose to be evil or good. But this thread is talking about the medical implications. Certain groups of people in the US are more likely to have AIDS, thanks to their choices. Those are pathological results.
Oh, so now you admit there's a mission here? Some people will always call a spade a spade. Why is that curious exactly? As Stox noted, a pathology means a disease and no, I don't believe any of the symptoms you suggest there would fall into that category, any more so than requiring steak for breakfast or your gift of the gab is. What, and become like you? It's just how I roll...
Oh so by homosexual you mean someone who is transported to an alternative universe where the opposite gender don't exist. You made the erroneous claim that homosexuality "quickly leads to extinction", which is an odd claim to make considering just afterwards you admitted that homosexuals can, and do, reproduce. At this point you should probably man up, retract what you said and find another angle. Even if we ignore human sexuality your point fails to recognise that many species, while displaying sexual behaviour, reproduce asexually. And even if we ignore those species all together, your point fails to acknowledge that sexuality is a preference of attraction and still doesn't doesn't mean it's impossible for homosexuals to reproduce sexually. And even if we ignore all of those points which prove your claim to be fatuous, some species don't reproduce sexually at all. Take fish for example. The females lays the eggs, then the male fertilises them. There is no sex involved at all. Fish could show a sexual attraction to any gender, any species or even inanimate objects, and it wouldn't effect their ability to reproduce or the rate at which that occurs. Your point was so fatuous, erroneous and ignorant on so many levels i'm starting to wonder how many times i have to prove you wrong before you, for the sake of your own dignity, admit it.
@Bushranger: I'm just glad we agree on this issue. @Stox: Incorrectly state my position, argue against it, declare victory! So boringly formulaic. Perhaps next you will explain to everyone why I am wrong about pink bunnies secretly ruling the universe. You've been gone so long, I had completely forgotten why I used to shorten my debates with you to the words "Ooga booga".
obamanation it was you who incorrectly stated your position, whether you have the integrity to admit it or not. I just pulled you up on it. It's pretty weak to attempt to enter into a discussion then whine that people aren't allowing you to make fatuous, incorrect claims. So far i have proven that homosexuals can, and do, reproduce, that not all species reproduce sexually while still demonstrating sexual preference and that homosexuality does, in no way, inhibit an organisms capacity to reproduce. And still you are unwilling to retract the claim that homosexuality will "quickly lead to extinction". You talk as though others aren't able to look at what you have previously said. They can see how wrong and intellectually dishonest you have been, whether you can see it, or admit to it, or not. Let me remind you. It's because you are intellectually inferior and incapable of defending your position against facts, logic and well supported arguments. Don't worry, it's normal for people like you to resort to such things, it's an easy cop out. A way to carry on posting while buckling under your own cowardice.
I suddenly had this image of Ahmadinijad on the UN human rights council, handing out advice on how to be a better human. Thanks man, it put a smile on my face.
To answer this question one has to look at sexual practices in other highly intelligent social animals in nature to determine if there are any genetic precursors/mutations that could lead to homosexually. In my youth I used to work for a poodle dog breeder and can tell you that there is evidence that we humans are not the only ones who engage in the practice. One of the female poodles (named Biggins) had a tendency to sniff the rare of other female poodles in season and would try to 'mount' them. Naturally the other female would retaliate and sometimes in a viscous way. Pam (the poodle breeder) and I concluded that Biggins didn't recognise her sex and may of had male chemistry/instinct embedded into her DNA. The other females recognized her sex and hence the conflict she encountered when trying to mate with them. We ended up having to isolate her and the other females in season to avoid future conflicts amongst them. We laughed if off as poor old Biggins scratched at the doors pineing and welpering to get to the females in season, She definitely had motivation to breed with them. And yes Biggins was talking material for Pam and her poodle enthusiast friends, Gay dog jokes where the norm with Biggins. All I can say from this is that there is indeed something more genetically profound to homosexuality than just social or physiological - psychology reasoning. I'd be confident to say that other species of animals may have been observed over the ages doing the same thing as Biggins. Ironically enough wiki has an article on it too --> wikipedia.org/../Homosexual_behavior_in_animals So I guess the prof is indeed in the pudding! ROOFIS