I think anchovies are a species of insect.
Wow, damn, that’s a powerful feeling.
Did you know that the people who are trained to know what constitutes a mental illness, like pychiatrists and psychologists, have concluded that homosexuality isn’t one?
You might want to invest in this if you plan to continue diagnosing mental illnesses.
This is just beautiful. Too bad so many others miss this important point.
Only young lesbians.
See, honey? Its not that I’m afraid of committment, but if I marry you, it will increase the possibility of being struck with mid-life homosexuality, then I’ll have to move to Venice and die. Plus, I’ll have to buy new clothes. So, you see, I’m doing this for you!
(Might work. Worth a shot…)
Hey Bob, care to explain the following dichotomy?
Other than the possibility that “mental illness” and “mental disease” mean two significantly different things to you, how do you explain “I think it’s a mental disease” and “I don’t know what constitutes a mental illness”? If nothing else you’re completely discrediting yourself mid-post.
The APA, btw, hasn’t listed homosexuality as any sort of disorder since IIRC 1970. And this:
would exclude depression (which the casual observer will note is certainly present in the DSM-IV-TR), since it does not necessarily lead to the path of extinction.
Why is ContumeliousBob not allowed to disapprove of homosexuality?
Ack. Bolding there was mine, not Bob’s.
Because his disapproval is couched in terms of a bogus “disease” argument that has no basis in fact. As soon as he comes up with something better, I’ll listen.
Robin
For my part, I don’t mind at all if ContumeliousBob disapproves of homosexuality. Just as it’s not my job to tell anyone that what they feel sexually is wrong, it’s not my job to tell anyone that they’re wrong for what they believe. I’m not the thought police, and thank God for that! What I, and many others, in this thread are objecting to is Bob throwing around stuff that’s just not true (i.e. homosexuality is a mental illness; legalizing gay marriage will ultimately lead to extinction of our species). In order for the legalization of gay marriage to lead to extinction of the species, one would have to believe that this legalization would all of a sudden lead to a lot of straight people turning gay, and also, that all gays would have to lose the desire to reproduce. Does anyone really believe that will happen? Also, I doubt the argument that “legalizing gay marriage will force [him] to recognize it”. Hell, I’m a woman, legally married to a man, but he doesn’t have to accept that if he doesn’t want to. It wouldn’t make a damned bit of difference to my life.
He has every right to disapprove of homosexuality. He has every right to express that view.
I have every right to disagree with him. I have every right to express that view.
If he doesn’t want to debate other people, he should stop posting on a public message board in a forum called the BBQ Pit, and return to muttering incoherently to himself.
I think a better punchline is: “Because sheep can hear zippers.”
I wasn’t “trained” by the media. I know, firsthand, that most of the silliness vomited up by bigots in utterly wrong.
Then why do you consider it a mental disease?
You say the word “hate” is thrown around far too much. How about the words “insanity,” “psychological complex,” and their synonyms? Assuming that someone who lives differently or feels differently from yourself is delusional is the height of egotism.
Homosexuality is no barrier to reproduction. It just requires more planning.
If you’re making a half-assed attempt at a Darwinian argument, I don’t buy it. Of course there are traits that don’t promote reproduction. They tend to get selected against, but that doesn’t mean they were all wiped out when human beings began living in cities, etc. There are also theories as to how homosexuality could promote long-term survival of genes (gay uncles acting as secondary parents, for example), examples of species where some members give up reproduction (non-alpha wolves, etc), and suggestions that homosexuality could be carried by non-homosexuals as a recessive gene or that male homosexuality could be a sex-linked trait.
3)If you are going to confuse scientific models and morality, here’s a counter to your “preprogrammed duty”: our species numbers six billion, reproduces at every opportunity, and frankly, anyone who’s willing to forego reproduction should be encouraged and rewarded. It’s our “duty” at this point to to avoid becoming victims of our out-of-control proliferation.
This is Freud’s discredited theory. There is no connection between homosexuality and immaturity. A very recent study on the subject. But if the American Psychological Association thought there was a connection, they wouldn’t have removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders more than three decades ago.
That’s a non-sequitor. Most of the stereotypes are negative, so how would that be “yay for gays?”
Besides, any gay-positive material the media is pushing now is to make up for the “decades of Hollywood and Los Angeles pushing an image of us as self-destructive and homicidal.”
Contumelious Bob?
No, JR “Bob” Dobbs. He can teach you to pull the wool over your own eyes! Eternal salvation or triple your money back!
The issues they have are pretty much the same issues you have.
I think homophobia is a moral disease.
But they aren’t the ones who have issues. You are.
If homo-sexuality is genetic, it is a flaw. The basic goal of life is to reproduce. A lot of energy is expended by all living things to achieve this. People are thinking animals. Because people can think, people have different ideas of what their ideal mate is. The majority of people are in some way attracted to the opposite sex. That is why there are 6 billion people on the planet.
Without intervention of some kind, homosexuals cant reproduce, and wont reproduce.
Just because you can do something does not make it right.
So homosexuals will save the day because they wont flood the earth with spawn? People come up with solutions to all sorts of problems, overpopulation doesnt relate to whether or not to approve of homosexuals.
Your “recent” study is on 365gay.com, so I doubt the credibility of that source.
Hollywood doesnt put a negative spin on homosexuality, they only portray them as effeminate being no real threat to the “manly” men.
The funny thing is I never cared about gay people, until all the marriage stuff started up.
I looked up one of the many definitions of homo-phobia, which apparently I am due to the fact that anything but blind acceptance is homophobic. :rolleyes:
There are apparently a lot of websites where men can hook up with each other to have ‘hot’ man sex with each other. Apparently a guy who was vehemently opposed to gay marraige was using a website too hook up with other men, and was caught by the local media at a motel waiting for the rendezvous.
And there is this one site that only lets people post ads for un-protected man on man sex. And they have listings for ‘conversion’ parties. Thats where ‘bug chasers’ try to get ‘breeded’ in hopes of catching the ‘bug’. The ‘bug’ being HIV.
So I support this behavior lest I be labeled a homo-phobe. :rolleyes:
This probably isn’t going to help much, Bob, but how about I give you one way in which homosexuality promotes survival of offspring?
It’s called the Uncle Effect. It’s pretty simple. You share half your genes, plus or minus, with your sister, right? Now, if your sister and her husband have a child, and you don’t have one, you might just spend some time helping them raise the child. The more attention a child gets growing up, the more likely it is to be successful, intelligent, and so on. The child gets married, has a kid itself, and presto, the genes of the uncle are at least partially passed on.
How’s that sound to you?
I hope that you’re not trying to paint the entire gay community with this particular brush. I think that just about everyone here would agree that the people who engage in this behavior have major issues.
And my particula point about homosexuality and expiration of the species (which you never addressed) is just this: legalizing gay marriage is not going to “make” more people gay, therefore, it’s not going to affect the population rate. The two gay people I’m closest to are two of my sisters, who happen to be lesbians. The older one has two children by a man she married when she was very young and desperate to get out of the house. The younger one has one child by a man she had sex with for the sole purpose of getting pregnant (the man consented to this; no sneaky stuff was involved). I can’t imagine that if society “legitimized” their sexuality by legalizing gay marriage that there would be any fewer children involved.
Are married adult heterosexuals who don’t want kids also flawed? Just trying to get a handle on your point of view.
ContumeliousBob:
Well, the above has already been disproven, so can we look forward to you coming up with something new? Or are you gonna keep beating this horse? And how do you explain the animals that are also homosexual? Y’know, the unthinking animals?
This is too precious for me to respond to without saying something that should be in the Pit.
Not at all. I think that these individuals are idiots. And get this: I’m one of those who support gay marriage. See, people are complex creatures, and therefore have different ideas and responses to stimuli. And my reaction to the stimuli that is you is repugnance.
Waste
The animals eh? Animals eat their young. DANG! We just solved world hunger and adoption problems! We can feed people with babys and children!
Does anyone know why people who are gay become gay to begin with?
Why would anyone choose to be gay?
I will never approve of the homosexual lifestyle.