Poop gate has been overpooped

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

xMurphyx

New Member
Jun 2, 2008
1,502
0
0
liandri.darkbb.com
[GU]elmur_fud;2458139 said:
Though I do like wagner's ride of the valkyries and Blueberries (in my oatmeal). The rest of your little fantasy is a no show.
Too bad. One more fellow earthling I can't share this with.:(

[GU]elmur_fud;2458139 said:
@ xMurphyx
It's from a quote by carl sagan - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Of course a lack of evidence doesn't mean something must 100% be false. It can also mean we lack the means to acquiring that evidence. But it certainly doesn't mean it's true and in science it is reasonable to assume it is not, if no evidence can be found. That doesn't mean a dogma is jotted down and it is considered untrue for all eternity. Should someone come up with evidence at some point we can review it of course and change our previous view. But only when evidence is found! Until then -> false.
And if you want to claim the homo is homosexual because his brains are broken, the negro is stupid because of his flat forehead and the Indians wild and ferocious facial features prove he is by nature unfit for civilization then you better have the evidence to back up your claims. Lest you appear like a paranoid, backwards-thinking homophobe without credibility.
This goes to your scientific sources, of course, not to you...
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
how is it possible that we are typing so many words about such a stupid subject?

let gay people get married already. they're just people.
seriously. you won't even notice it.

what the f*ck is wrong with this country that anyone is still so vehemently opposed to the idea?
 

Rambowjo

Das Protoss
Aug 3, 2005
5,073
5
38
32
Tapeland
how is it possible that we are typing so many words about such a stupid subject?

let gay people get married already. they're just people.
seriously. you won't even notice it.

what the f*ck is wrong with this country that anyone is still so vehemently opposed to the idea?

God will smite you, if you allow the homos to marry.
 

Phopojijo

A Loose Screw
Nov 13, 2005
1,458
0
0
37
Canada
[GU]elmur_fud;2458110 said:
I am not. I made a casual statement of my opinion and received a multi page barbecue for being different which is ironic considering it's in regards to my view of terminology as it effects scientific progress in awkward matters relating to quite probably the most harassed group of people in history simply because they are different. In my mind the comparison is not to the lifestyle it's to what formed thier mind-set into leading that lifestyle and I say it's psychologicly rooted.

...

The lack of evidence of damage, malformation, or simple lack of development on the part of homosexuality isn't proof to that it isn't caused by one of those. The observation was that they couldn't find any proof so we will rename. The decision to no longer call it as such was made on a lack of evidence not evidence to the contrary.
You know, one man with a strong opinion about a topic can be the one to show the light to the masses as is what happened so many times... like with the 3-stage Ruby Laser.

They can also be wrong... and lack of evidence is a good indication of which end of the spectrum your opinion lies on.

The fact of the matter is that you want it to be classified as a disorder... in spite of all the counter evidence and all the counter opinions.

That is not scientific, that is faith (or deliberate).

If you were to broaden the definition of a disorder to include homosexuality... the same criteria would include heterosexuality as a disorder except in terms of "normal involving procreation"... which is easily bunked both by gendered species where not every member is designed to procreate (such as bees and ants) or by straight couples who do not procreate.
 

[GU]elmur_fud

I have balls of Depleted Uranium
Mar 15, 2005
3,148
31
48
45
Waco, Texas
mtbp.deviantart.com
Too bad. One more fellow earthling I can't share this with.:(


Of course a lack of evidence doesn't mean something must 100% be false. It can also mean we lack the means to acquiring that evidence. But it certainly doesn't mean it's true and in science it is reasonable to assume it is not, if no evidence can be found. That doesn't mean a dogma is jotted down and it is considered untrue for all eternity. Should someone come up with evidence at some point we can review it of course and change our previous view. But only when evidence is found! Until then -> false.
And if you want to claim the homo is homosexual because his brains are broken, the negro is stupid because of his flat forehead and the Indians wild and ferocious facial features prove he is by nature unfit for civilization then you better have the evidence to back up your claims. Lest you appear like a paranoid, backwards-thinking homophobe without credibility.
This goes to your scientific sources, of course, not to you...

I never said any1's brains were broken that would be quite the over-dramatization of things I said and I have slept for 8 hours so I can't figure out what source your poking at.

depends on the size of the bloke :)
Dang
529.gif

how is it possible that we are typing so many words about such a stupid subject?

let gay people get married already. they're just people.
seriously. you won't even notice it.

what the f*ck is wrong with this country that anyone is still so vehemently opposed to the idea?

Actually I don't recall any1 being against it here.

God will smite you, if you allow the homos to marry.

Except this guy.

You know, one man with a strong opinion about a topic can be the one to show the light to the masses as is what happened so many times... like with the 3-stage Ruby Laser.

They can also be wrong... and lack of evidence is a good indication of which end of the spectrum your opinion lies on.

The fact of the matter is that you want it to be classified as a disorder... in spite of all the counter evidence and all the counter opinions.

That is not scientific, that is faith (or deliberate).

If you were to broaden the definition of a disorder to include homosexuality... the same criteria would include heterosexuality as a disorder except in terms of "normal involving procreation"... which is easily bunked both by gendered species where not every member is designed to procreate (such as bees and ants) or by straight couples who do not procreate.

My arguement/opinion is based off my personal observations and the lack of research into the formative years of homosexuals. I do not have a desire to label it a disorder other then I think that is the closest term in clinical psychology to describe what it is in my observarations and I am obstantly stuborn about being trutheful.

The thought that it is the response I.E. the scar if you will (not scab) left by psychological trauma caused to sum1 at an age that can mentally rebound from such a thing but can't mentally comprehend what is happening to them(this does fit my observations) certainly casts the term of disorder into question in my mind but then what would you call it in psychologicly?
 

Balton

The Beast of Worship
Mar 6, 2001
13,428
118
63
39
Berlin
[GU]elmur_fud;2457928 said:
And you balton make all of us Germans look bad. Thankyou. :rolleyes: If you are to be believed thats twice over for me. I don't believe you however as this forum is chock full of people that are biggots towards Texans already. A prediposed viewpoint invalidates you.

I am very well aware of Germans in Texas and their history and that is exactly why I am so disgusted with you, so much positive potential wasted in so little time. So, you're one of them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: oosyxxx

Phopojijo

A Loose Screw
Nov 13, 2005
1,458
0
0
37
Canada
[GU]elmur_fud;2458229 said:
My arguement/opinion is based off my personal observations and the lack of research into the formative years of homosexuals. I do not have a desire to label it a disorder other then I think that is the closest term in clinical psychology to describe what it is in my observarations and I am obstantly stuborn about being trutheful.

The thought that it is the response I.E. the scar if you will (not scab) left by psychological trauma caused to sum1 at an age that can mentally rebound from such a thing but can't mentally comprehend what is happening to them(this does fit my observations) certainly casts the term of disorder into question in my mind but then what would you call it in psychologicly?
Wikipedia said:
A trait is a distinct variant of a phenotypic character of an organism that may be inherited, environmentally determined or somewhere in between.
 

Benfica

European Redneck
Feb 6, 2006
2,004
0
0
Nothing of what I'm going to say is rocket science, some are "duh, really?". I'm actually the one that doesn't understand a few things. I drank and I'm having a bit of an hangover atm, so don't expect much :p

I honestly can't agree with elmur's most obtuse arguments. The disorder part caught my attention, though. I hope that gays have great living conditions and I don't really care what homosexuality is considered, but WHAT IF? Are people with a mental illness like bipolar disorder sub-human by any chance? Then from his quoted article:
an attribution of mental illness in our culture is devastating
Oh, it is? Why?

The flaming about if homosexuality is a disorder or not, has not that much to do with gays. It has to do with us. Probably most gays don't, but some DO see their condition as not natural, due to low self esteem or marginalization. Again, some learn to let it go and join equal minded people.

In this worst case, SO WHAT? Well, the culture is not ready to deal with all kinds of different people in the first place, and that's actually the problem. What's ideal is everyone only minding other people's business if it impacts their own life, or otherwise with positive intentions (helping, being solidary, altruistic). Not for arbitrary reasons. Being open minded enough to be kind and respectful EVEN IF considering other individuals to be strange or different.

Whatever condition, every citizen is to be considered "innocent until proven guilty". To deserve respect as long as doesn't hurt anyone. What matters is how they behave with you, not what they are. Depending on one's mindset or culture, it's very easy to start labeling others as horrible, dumb, or losers. That is probably valid for flamewars, not against the ones you don't even know or understand. This insightful:rolleyes: behaviour is actually very short-sighted, btw. If it's easy and arbitrary to single out and marginalize, the odds are particularly high that this kind of BS will sooner or later turn against you.

That leads me to something else I consider strange. The point of this thread is not about if gays do dirty stuff. It is to realize if it is viable to extend the civil contract of marriage to people of the same sex, isn' it? What are advantages or disadvantages? Are they getting rights AT THE EXPENSE of others, or they get benefits while it's not a big deal? Does this law have a positive-sum outcome or not? Unlike it happens when defending other minorities (for instance Islamists), is there any scenario where gay marriage steps over the rights of other citizens? If there is, sure, it will be very hard to elaborate this law. If there is not, why bother so much about it?
 
Last edited:

phil

OH GOD
Jan 3, 2000
3,705
0
0
To celebrate the "prop 8" repeal the administrators of this site have unbanned me in an attempt to make this forum even more gay. All you angry conservatives can be twice as mad about "prop 8" now. :D
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
To celebrate the "prop 8" repeal the administrators of this site have unbanned me in an attempt to make this forum even more gay. All you angry conservatives can be twice as mad about "prop 8" now. :D
I'm pretty sure it's more like "the few of you who are conservatives don't have to worry because 100+1 is not much more than 101-1". :p
 

Grobut

Комиссар Гробут
Oct 27, 2004
1,822
0
0
Soviet Denmark
[GU]elmur_fud;2458229 said:
My arguement/opinion is based off my personal observations and the lack of research into the formative years of homosexuals. I do not have a desire to label it a disorder other then I think that is the closest term in clinical psychology to describe what it is in my observarations and I am obstantly stuborn about being trutheful.

The thought that it is the response I.E. the scar if you will (not scab) left by psychological trauma caused to sum1 at an age that can mentally rebound from such a thing but can't mentally comprehend what is happening to them(this does fit my observations) certainly casts the term of disorder into question in my mind but then what would you call it in psychologicly?

Psychological trauma does indeed leave a mental scar, allways, and like all scars, they are visible if you know what to look for.. so here's the problem for your theory, they looked all over, but there is no "gay scar", there is no pattern, there is nothing to see on brain scans that indicates trauma, there is no consistant commonality between cases that suggest causality, nothing, zilch, nada, and you are obviously not a Psychologist, you have gathered no data on zero patients, so what data do you really have that you base your opinion on, that you can tell all the worlds Psychologists that they are wrong?

And don't think they haven't looked, finding a Psychological cause for Homosexuality would be a holy grail of career advencement in that field, if anyone actually did it, all kinds of doors would open for them in the field of Psychology and they would get published for sure, so it most certainly has been studied! And still is!

But there is no evidence, none, and the fact that there is no evidence, when the evidence should infact be obvious and easy to find (there are obvious patterns for all the other Psychological disorders, and no, i'm not thinking of patterns of the disorder, as in "you have sex with dead bodies therefor you have a disorder called Necrophillia", but patterns that led to the disorder, as in "thease events in your childhood led to your developping the disorder called Necrophillia", that's a key difference there!), makes it extremely unlikely that there exists a Psychological cause for Homosexuality, i'd give it the same chances as my car beeing struck by a meteor tonight.
Everything we have done, found, researched and uncovered points to there beeing a biological cause, not a Psychological one.


A lot of people don't like that answer though, not because it's not absolutely plausible, it certainly is both plausible and the most likely explination, according to the Science that has been carried out thus far, no, they don't like it because it's inconveniant, because they belive man was created in God's image, and that every child has the same inherent chance to be "saved", but they also belive that Homosexuality is a sin, and thus, the idea that God would allow Babies to be born gay, born predisposed if not destined to live in sin, is frightening and confusing to them, it threatens them.
Thus, despite all evidence to the contrary, they shun the idea that this can be happening, and instead cling to the idea that it is a choice, or that it must be Psychological, because that means it could have been prevented and God didn't make them that way!


And here you are, Fud, a relegious man, adamently clinging to the idea that Homosexuality must be the result of Psychological trauma, dispite all lack of evidence, and solid evidence suggesting the opposite, clinging to your opinion as was it the mast of a sinking vessel, glacing over any evidence that points to the contrary, stamping your feet, and proclaiming "i am certain that i am right"!

It's pretty obvious where i'm going with that, isen't it? And no doubt, your first reaction to reading this will be to tell me that i am wrong, that i have misjudged you.. ahh, but it is not me you need to convince of that, it is yourself, and as a man who claims to value truth and honesty, allways know this; Truth starts at home, and no man who lies to himself is capable of conveying truth to others.
 

M.A.D.X.W

Active Member
Aug 24, 2008
4,486
5
38
To celebrate the "prop 8" repeal the administrators of this site have unbanned me in an attempt to make this forum even more gay. All you angry conservatives can be twice as mad about "prop 8" now. :D
Hi phil
 

[GU]elmur_fud

I have balls of Depleted Uranium
Mar 15, 2005
3,148
31
48
45
Waco, Texas
mtbp.deviantart.com
Psychological trauma does indeed leave a mental scar, allways, and like all scars, they are visible if you know what to look for.. so here's the problem for your theory, they looked all over, but there is no "gay scar", there is no pattern, there is nothing to see on brain scans that indicates trauma, there is no consistant commonality between cases that suggest causality, nothing, zilch, nada, and you are obviously not a Psychologist, you have gathered no data on zero patients, so what data do you really have that you base your opinion on, that you can tell all the worlds Psychologists that they are wrong?

And don't think they haven't looked, finding a Psychological cause for Homosexuality would be a holy grail of career advencement in that field, if anyone actually did it, all kinds of doors would open for them in the field of Psychology and they would get published for sure, so it most certainly has been studied! And still is!

But there is no evidence, none, and the fact that there is no evidence, when the evidence should infact be obvious and easy to find (there are obvious patterns for all the other Psychological disorders, and no, i'm not thinking of patterns of the disorder, as in "you have sex with dead bodies therefor you have a disorder called Necrophillia", but patterns that led to the disorder, as in "thease events in your childhood led to your developping the disorder called Necrophillia", that's a key difference there!), makes it extremely unlikely that there exists a Psychological cause for Homosexuality, i'd give it the same chances as my car beeing struck by a meteor tonight.
Everything we have done, found, researched and uncovered points to there beeing a biological cause, not a Psychological one.


A lot of people don't like that answer though, not because it's not absolutely plausible, it certainly is both plausible and the most likely explination, according to the Science that has been carried out thus far, no, they don't like it because it's inconveniant, because they belive man was created in God's image, and that every child has the same inherent chance to be "saved", but they also belive that Homosexuality is a sin, and thus, the idea that God would allow Babies to be born gay, born predisposed if not destined to live in sin, is frightening and confusing to them, it threatens them.
Thus, despite all evidence to the contrary, they shun the idea that this can be happening, and instead cling to the idea that it is a choice, or that it must be Psychological, because that means it could have been prevented and God didn't make them that way!


And here you are, Fud, a relegious man, adamently clinging to the idea that Homosexuality must be the result of Psychological trauma, dispite all lack of evidence, and solid evidence suggesting the opposite, clinging to your opinion as was it the mast of a sinking vessel, glacing over any evidence that points to the contrary, stamping your feet, and proclaiming "i am certain that i am right"!

It's pretty obvious where i'm going with that, isen't it? And no doubt, your first reaction to reading this will be to tell me that i am wrong, that i have misjudged you.. ahh, but it is not me you need to convince of that, it is yourself, and as a man who claims to value truth and honesty, allways know this; Truth starts at home, and no man who lies to himself is capable of conveying truth to others.

Well you are right that the first thing I will say is that you are wrong. You are wrong to think I wouldn't read and carefully consider every word of every post pertaining to me/my comments. You are wrong to think me a simpleton or somehow less intelligent because I am religious as your comments would imply about me. That said, I appreciated your post much more then most as it was much less derisive then others, was still a bit so, but at least civil and not bent on bending or twisting something I said (intentionally or no).

You are right I am religious, so what. I am not threatened by it being biological and Any who is religious that is threatened is merely ignorant of the bible and what it says. Yes it says man was created in his image, it also says sin corrupted it. The act is still a choice and as it's the act thats a sin... furthermore according to the bible every1 sins. lastly on this topic as I really doubt 99% here give a crap what the bible says: Biblically the amount of sin you commit is irrelevant it's whether you want to be saved and strive for that.

Your right I am not a Psychologist, my background in psychology is 2 psych classes in college for my social science credits and torturing a cousin who is going for her masters in psychology right now. You might also include a little home research, poking around the web about various things. My lack of education doesn't preclude me from having potentially valid observations however.

...if you know what to look for...
The complexity of the human mind and the nature of things unknown allows for the possibility that they didn't know what to look for. Additionally, pls site sources, I don't doubt you, I wish to read about it at length and couldn't locate anything on any such study via a google search. (No time to go dig into the local university library either sadly.)

This is what has been the basis of my observations, paraphrased and altered in details to keep me from getting my arse kicked by the parties involved if they ever read this. As some of my family keep track of the black sheep. (previous generation exspecially)...

Subject A, was raped and beat as a toddler and psychologically and physical abused until she was a teen by her father, at which point some teachers intervened, and in the subsequent investigation and court case the sordid details came out. She had a couple of boyfriends one of which date raped her when she said no. After high school she moved out and joined the air force. after doing 1 tour she told her family she was at least bi and maybe gay as she hadn't been with a man since high school. 3 years ago in may she took a lethal overdose of a prescription medication she was taking to deal with life on the day her mother signed the papers to legally dishone her. She told me she wasn't really non-attracted to men till she was date raped in high school.

Just typing that made me cry so obviously I haven't fully dealt with it. I was also enraged again at her mother but I know I haven't dealt with that, I know of no productive way to do so. Though I did flip her off at the funeral. Felt like kicking her butt out.

Suddenly I don't feel like sharing anymore. :(:(:( I resolve to press on as the rest is non-tragic. And I have decided to change my sig statement in her memory and that helps.

Subject B's family still don't know that he is gay his father is very cold and never shows any caring for him but will lavish affection (healthy affection from what I have seen and am told) on his sisters and mother. He says he resents his sisters and mother and all the girls that were cruel to him.And has been drawn to other males such as mentors and friends. I have asked and he knows of no sexual abuse in his past. He told me his first sexual encounter was with a friend he made at a retail shop he frequented at the age of 19.

I don't think his parents would ostracize him in any way but they wouldn't be happy.

Subject C is so effeminate his parents have introduced him as 'and this is blank our gay son' since he was in his mid teens and went through a phase were he and I were goth and he wore makeup. (They introduced me as his partner once and I felt the need to correct that misunderstanding as is my nature. At the time he did also.) Now he makes no pretenses that he is not. I know he has been aroused by women as I walked in on him wanking to a paused image of Christina Applegate in don't tell mom the babysitter is dead. When I asked him several years ago (which was when I decided I wanted to understand this better, you probably guess when) if has attracted to girls also he said only a few very specific ones but was intimidated by them in general.

Subject D never new his dad and told me he found breasts OK but was appalled by the vagina as he couldn't get past having come out of one and that if he tried to imagine having sex with a woman the thought of his mother kept interjecting.

You may say I am misunderstanding what is going on or that they are thoroughly unrelated and you may be right. To me however this says it's psychological or at least in these cases.

As a side note I know of 10 or so other homosexuals that I am close enough to to ask such personal question none of which know of any 'trauma'. Some feel they have always been gay some say they realized after living straight for awhile or trying to. Not sure why but the word 'trying' or the lack there of seemed to be important in the way they said it.

I can't wait to see how I get flamed for this post. I would greatly appretiate people leaving subject A out of any flaming.