• Gays v2 - really, there's nothing wrong with them
    394 replies, posted
Source: [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1[/url] Happy? [editline]7th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bletotum;35040762]That "shitty opinion" of evidence, that you brush off like you do any other evidence contrary to your argument(while stating that you are totally right and don't need proof), comes from the president of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International]one of the largest "ex-gay" ministries[/url]. If you cannot accept that you could be wrong, and rely on something so flimsy a reason as "common sense", you should not be stating the nature of a group of people that you are not a part of.[/QUOTE] Maybe you need to accept you're wrong. I provided my source since you people seem to think EVERYTHING needs one. I don't brush off evidence. There hasn't been any except for your pro-gay article. Also, common sense can be the best source of all.
The part where your source says the study has not "been published or [i]reviewed[/i]" makes me skeptical of it's validity. [quote]Haldeman, however, noted that some 43 percent of those sampled were referred by religious groups that condemn homosexuality. Another 23 percent were referred by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which says most of its members consider homosexuality a developmental disorder. "The sample is terrible, totally tainted, totally unrepresentative of the gay and lesbian community," said David Elliot, a spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington.[/quote] welp
[QUOTE=deaded38;35041230]Source: [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1[/url] Happy?[/quote] Uh, no? Did you even read your source, it's dubious as hell. [quote]A controversial new study says yes — if they really want to. [B]Critics, though, say the study's subjects may be deluding themselves and that the subject group was scientifically invalid because many of them were referred by anti-gay religious groups.[/B] Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University, said he began his study as a skeptic — believing, as major mental health organizations do, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and attempts to do so can even cause harm. But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale. He said those who changed their orientation had satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thought of someone of the same sex during intercourse. He also found that 89 percent of men and 95 percent of women were bothered not at all or only slightly by unwanted homosexual feelings. However, only 11 percent of men and 37 percent of women reported a complete absence of homosexual indicators. "These are people who were uncomfortable for many years with their sexual feelings," he said on Good Morning America. But they managed to change those feelings, he added. The study reopens the debate over "reparative therapy," or treatment to change sexual preference. Spitzer argues that highly motivated gays can in fact change that preference — with a lot of effort. But critics have challenged the study, even before it was formally unveiled at today's session of the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in New Orleans, which was jammed with television cameras reporting on the presentation. Another study presented today even contradicted the finding. Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder, two psychologists in private practice in New York City, found that of 215 homosexual subjects who received therapy to change their sexual orientation, the majority failed to do so. A small subset reported feeling helped. [B]That study has also not been published or reviewed.[/B] [B]Psychologist Douglas Haldeman also said the experiences described by Spitzer's subjects "should be taken with a very big grain of salt." The people in Spitzer's sample, he said, may be fooling themselves.[/B][/quote] So let's see: A not peer reviewed or published study that psychologists and others are incredibly skeptical of because the subjects were referred by anti-gay groups is the source you've used? Garbage, absolute garbage. [QUOTE=deaded38;35041230]Maybe you need to accept you're wrong. I provided my source since you people seem to think EVERYTHING needs one. I don't brush off evidence. There hasn't been any except for your pro-gay article. Also, common sense can be the best source of all.[/QUOTE] You are in no position to be critical of them for asking for your source, this is a debate. Common sense is [I]not[/I] a source in this setting.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35041423]Uh, no? Did you even read your source, it's dubious as hell.[/QUOTE] and a quote on some guy's blog isn't?
[QUOTE=limulus54;35041492]and a quote on some guy's blog isn't?[/QUOTE] It's not definitive evidence of homosexuality being not by choice, but deaded38 specifically stated that homosexual people could become homosexual without a source, whilst claiming that he did not need one. Now that he has posted one, it's incredibly shoddy.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35041549]It's not definitive evidence of homosexuality being not by choice, but deaded38 specifically stated that homosexual people could become homosexual without a source, whilst claiming that he did not need one. Now that he has posted one, it's incredibly shoddy.[/QUOTE] Just like the one posted before me. It's no different.
I thought this thread was great then I reread a couple of random pages and a lot of the posts I saw sounded like they belonged in a thread titled "Persecute and misunderstand anyone who can see why some people don't like gays and use terrible comparisons v2" I thought this was a debate about why there's nothing wrong with gays and why some people aren't so fond of them. I saw someone post an image of a facebook post that said something funny (although to the classier falls under disgusting) and saying something along the lines of "Some people like this ruin it for others and give them a bad image". They were then called out for having an avatar of a woman sitting in a pool and said something about "IS THAT ANYMORE ACCEPTABLE THAN A BARELY COVERED PENIS?". First off the bikini was not barely covering her, second genitalia is a lot more offensive than someone's chest. The comparison was even worse considering men (potentially gay men) are allowed to not wear any form of top in public. Another reason it's a terrible comparison, that person rules out lesbians. Edit: Not to say that everyone here is terrible, it's just some people should stop posting.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;35041950] I thought this was a debate about why there's nothing wrong with gays and why some people aren't so fond of them. [/QUOTE] I honestly don't think there was anything to debate about why gays are bad - because they aren't.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35041910]Just like the one posted before me. It's no different.[/QUOTE] How can the quote of the head of a large and relevant organization be shoddy? It's in video too. back to you brushing off contrary evidence
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35044096]How can the quote of the head of a large and relevant organization be shoddy? It's in video too. back to you brushing off contrary evidence[/QUOTE] It's about as shoddy as the study he posted, if not worse. Your source is by no means scientific in nature, and if it were, the participants of ex-gay programs would by a horribly biased sample.
I think the head of a large company has no reason to make a false statement that could harm his business; being the head of an 'ex-gay' group of facilities puts him in a knowledgeable position on the subject. If he says that the overwhelming majority of subjects fail to change their orientation, then I am inclined to believe so.
[QUOTE=SiPlus;35021631]It's OK to be gay, I think, but it's not OK to be faggot. Gay is homosexual man, faggot is hypersexual homosexual man. Hypersexuality is bad both with straight nymphomaniacs and faggots.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw[/media] And as a gay person I agree with what louis CK is saying here. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=deaded38;35040215]No, I'm not a homophobe. Just because I know the truth doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Contrary to popular belief, I have gay friends.[/QUOTE] This is the same as saying: "I'm not racist, I have black/asian/etc friends."
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35044560]I think the head of a large company has no reason to make a false statement that could harm his business; being the head of an 'ex-gay' group of facilities puts him in a knowledgeable position on the subject. If he says that the overwhelming majority of subjects fail to change their orientation, then I am inclined to believe so.[/QUOTE] And that's really good for you, but it doesn't make your source more valid than his.
Would you consider transgenders to be homosexual?
[QUOTE=NicoleEmilid;35049212]Would you consider transgenders to be homosexual?[/QUOTE] Depends what their gender is and who they're attracted to.
Just for clarification, it seems like this: [url]http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html[/url] talks about a published study done by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer about the ability of gay people to become straight. He was also one of the doctors who helped push through the change of homosexuality not being a mental disorder.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35040215]I don't need a source. It's called common sense. Gay people can become straight. Maybe not in the exact same way a lifelong straight person. But it can happen. No, I'm not a homophobe. Just because I know the truth doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Contrary to popular belief, I have gay friends. Changing yourself isn't bad. I stopped beating the shit out of people over silly things when I got into middle school because I matured. That's a change. Also, you're acting like the change is spontaneous. I'm sure it takes time and support. You don't just go ahead and start kissing someone of the same sex for any reason.[/QUOTE] So you like potatoes, i can't just stop you from liking potatoes by slapping you in the face and keep telling you you don't like potatoes, its just not gone happen. Over time you might develop and start liking potatoes less, who knows, but you cant force it.
[QUOTE=limulus54;35049192]And that's really good for you, but it doesn't make your source more valid than his.[/QUOTE] Words, words. Why exactly is what I just said false?
They bitch. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Delrainn;35056284]They bitch.[/QUOTE] wow hey guys we got a quality poster that posts such quality posts from the LGBTQ thread such as: [QUOTE=Delrainn;35055611]It's still funny how much you guys whine. Why even label yourself gay if you want to look at guys that look like [B]ugly[/B] girls or just aren't interested in men at all (excluding lesbians). You shouldn't be in this thread in the first place if you need SFW. come on now, it's in the damn name. PINK DILDOS EDITION meh, w/e you guys can talk about your manly purses im outta here[/QUOTE] Your accusation is unfounded, and just plain mean.
[QUOTE=SiPlus;35021631]It's OK to be gay, I think, but it's not OK to be faggot. Gay is homosexual man, faggot is hypersexual homosexual man. Hypersexuality is bad both with straight nymphomaniacs and faggots. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))[/highlight][/QUOTE] This is not a term for the amount of homosexuality one presents. It's a derogatory term to bash homosexuals, but it raises the same definition. I believe people like to call them "flaming" when they're a flamboyant gay.
There's nothing wrong with them. I think we just have to respect them, the problem is, when some gays, fall in love with heterosexual male, they can't realise that, some men don't want men.
Jesus what is with people that are afraid I'm gonna stick my dong up their butts just because I like dudes??
Tell that to the gay of my classroom, that dude loves me, and scare's the shit out of me.
[QUOTE=Wux;35057012]There's nothing wrong with them. I think we just have to respect them, the problem is, when some gays, fall in love with heterosexual male, they can't realise that, some men don't want men.[/QUOTE] the same applies with straight men and women that are uninterested in them [QUOTE=Wux;35057169]Tell that to the gay of my classroom, that dude loves me, and scare's the shit out of me.[/QUOTE] don't let your experience with someone have you generalize a group
Sure.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35056124]Words, words. Why exactly is what I just said false?[/QUOTE] It isn't. It just isn't any better a source than what deaded posted.
Deaded and my source both are opposing words by individuals on the subject. His source is the result of a man polling individuals (who risks nothing), mine is from a head of a relevant organization that deals directly with the people in question, who risks losing profits(which speaks for the validity of the content). I would say that this acts as a better source. Not being a scientific study does not disqualify something as a source. If that were the case, much court testimony would be null.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35058524]Deaded and my source both are opposing words by individuals on the subject. His source is the result of a man polling individuals (who risks nothing), mine is from a head of a relevant organization that deals directly with the people in question, who risks losing profits(which speaks for the validity of the content). I would say that this acts as a better source. Not being a scientific study does not disqualify something as a source. If that were the case, much court testimony would be null.[/QUOTE] Alright, you seem to be having some trouble with this. At no point did I say that either of these sources are invalid in any way. They are just both equally questionable. The man polling individuals does risk something, his reputation and the with that the respect of a community he likely values. Either way, I think risk hardly counts for much in terms of how much a source may be trusted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.