Poop gate has been overpooped

[Balton]

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.

"oh god" sounds about right
now we need beerbaron unbanned.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

I just don't understand why you say, and in general, mental stuff caused by life events like being raped, are called disorders and mental illnesses. It's the same as normal brain development as you grow up, just most people don't get raped.
It's not a disorder just a result of some stuff, everybody is a result of some stuff though.

Wierb times.

Even when it's genetics, everybody is affected by genetics and stuffs, so how come when it detracts from some sort of average, in a "negative" way it's called a disorder/mental illness?

Everybody is disordered I feel, everything fits it. Being "normal" is a result of biology/genetics, psychology, and upbringing/social stuff. Being heterosexual or homosexual is also a result of these things. Being mentally "ill" is a result of these things also. So it's not even a big deal, nothing is naturally ordered really. Well it is ordered, peopleos just don't realize it's ordered.

So being gay is fine, and nothing is a disorder. Enjoy having sex with whatever you want (as long as it's consensual) before you die, and eat tuna rolls :tup:

 

[Grobut]

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.

Then you read too much into that statement, i am not saying that people have to be less intelligent to be relegious, that is demonstrably wrong, Albert Einstein was a man of faith and i don't think anyone here is qualified to say he was a stupid man.

Relegion does, however, put a filter on your perception, if you truely belive one thing to be true, you are not going to be open to ideas that contradicts that belief, most people in that case will catagorily refuse to accept the data that conflicts with their existing world view, others will only resist it subconciously, and try to find a way this new information can be adapted to fit into their existing views, only rarely will they say "i guess that means i was wrong, ohh well, now i belive this new thing!".

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.


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.

Then first of all, you need to understand what Homosexuality is, because it is NOT the act of "having sex with someone of your own gender", that is just a common symptom of Homosexuality, it is not what defines it.

Prison sex for instance involves two males having sex, but it is not classified as Homosexuality, because most of thease men would much rather have sex with a female if you gave them that choice, no, prison sex is the result of putting people in a high stress and dangerous environment that is compleately devoid of sexually avalible females, eventually, they will seek release of their stress, and nothing does that quite like sex, it both makes you feel good, and there is a sense of power attached to it aswell, making someone their bitch makes them feel in control in an environment where they control very little.
But when they are released from prison, they will go hump the nearest female that agree's to get humped (even if that means paying for it).

Likewise, we do not call male Pedophiles who molest boys "gay", we just call them Pedophiles, why? because Pedophiles are not attracted to the actual victim, but to the power they hold over their victims, that is what gets them off, and usually, the only reason they target boys is because they see them as more difficult and challenging prey than girls (or just because they have easy access to boys, and not girls), and that is what they get their jollies from.
It is entirely about power, and has nothing to do with real attraction.

Likewise, there are many other disorders that can lead people to have sex with someone of their own gender, the victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance, they will often grow up with geneder identity issues and many other problems, infact some will use it as selfmedication, as therapy, whilst others have just had their sexuality so broken by what happened to them that having sex with someone of their attackers geneder repulses them.. but this is a symptom of their disorder, it is not the disorder itself.


No, Homosexuality is not the act of "having gay sex" (so for instance, if a man raped you, that would not make you gay, it would just make you a victim of rape), Homosexuality is when people genuinly fall in love with and desire people of their own gender, not just because they have no other choice, not because of any underlying need to empower or even punish themselves that we can trace to another disorder, but because that is how they are wired, that is just who they are.
There is no sign of disorder with thease people, they seem to work exactly like us straight people, it is the same things that motivates them, the same feelings, we can't find anything wrong with them, they come from all kinds of backgrounds so there is no evidence of a trigger, it seems they where simply born gay, just wired differently, and indeed, that is precisely how they view themselves too.
And yes, gay people tend to have gay sex, beeing attracted to your own gender will obviously lead to such desires, but the act is not what makes them gay, it is the feelings and desires they have that makes them so.


To understand Psychology, it is important that you understand the differences of what i have clarified above, and how a symptom is not the same as the disorder/condition, because that is where you appear to lose the trail and get things confused.

 

[m00naY]

 

[pine]

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.

haha holy ****. What's up phil?

BU has always been pretty gay though, one of the things that makes it cool.

 

[BillyBadAss]

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.

I missed you.

 

[Adelheid]

Btw, I wonder if he realizes the research doesn't exactly say what he thinks it does.

I am aware of that, yes. I was being glib for the sake of simplicity.

I am also aware that the research reduces Elmer's arguments against same-sex marriage marriage/homosexuality to an unbackable barrage of personal opinion, which in my opinion only needs to be posted once, and explained once.

itics is serious business.

@Dr Stephen Falken

1. I was being sarcastic, sorry that wasn't conveyed well. Carefully reading my self quote should show I don't think I am the only one. I did say however that I was the only one that stuck to my guns for very long, 50% of the time. But that is as close as it gets.

So you are saying that your problem is that the people with only personal opinion have stopped endlessly repeating themselves?

Or is your problem that when the people who like to discuss politics with actual backing of their points and arguments began massing in this discussion all of the people who don't have backing of their points and arguments, thus revealing those points and arguments, to be mere opinion, either bogged off or began posting... crap?

2. I have a family association with people at the highest level of Haliburton ( I don't have money they do just so were clear.) I have overheard things I don't know that I should legally repeat as such I have not entered that thread.

Y' wot?
...
I have familiy assosciations with the guy who "created" The Plumbing Centre, doesn't mean I know **** about plumbing.

3.OK, sorry as per the above I can not notice anything about it.

Please if there are facts to the contrary of what I said post them.

Click These:
Wiki: Biology and sexual orientation: Brain structure If you have the time to find their online counterparts the sources are good.
Article: Homosexual brain resembles opposite sex Basically, if "queers" are "broken" then so are women.
Wiki: Paedophillia and the brain Broken head.
Tumor makes man a Paedo Doesn't give him an excuse to act on his urges, though. In my opinion.
Bad wiring and Paedophillia

I maintain that I considered the positions of others when posting But almost every post counter mine was misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what I was saying. The fact that I am still here is that I am still being misunderstood IMO.

There was no misinterpretation or misrepresentation. You equated homosexuality and zoophilia. You used gays and horse-****ers in the same sentence. Now you realise your mistake and, for some odd reason, can't admit you were wrong.

Yes I am a religious man but what my church has to say on the subject of gays is far flung from the position I hold. I have a mind of my own and I use it to decide for myself. My decision is to not to be a hater and to except and love my family and friends for what they are. Which is more biblical then being a hater anyway. Here are a few verses to throw at the haters.

Mark 12:31 Love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

"Judge ye not lest ye be judged thyself" yeah? Everyone knows what that means, yeah? So why the hell are you judging the homosexuals to be sick and twisted when all evidence is to the contrary?

These 2 themes are echoed all over the bible old and new testament in probably hundreds of verses. I only know of 2 that speak about homosexuality. They both refer to the act as being gross aka an abomination in old English to god. Not to the individuals themselves.

The bible also says that women are the source of all evil in the universe.
The bible also says that we have dominion over all things on earth.
I'd go on, but my point is that the bible as we know it today was written, censored, and edited by greedy, selfish, ignorant, mortal men some 2000 years ago, and one should probably follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

Since intermediaries (confessing to a priest) aren't biblical in my opinion that means what you do to whom is none of my business and I will treat you no differently then Any else.

Cool.

Whether you believe it divinely inspired or not, and I realize most here do not, it is good advice. And good knowledge to rationally deal with bible thumping anti homosexuals.

1) Believe what to be divinely inspired? Is this connected to the next bit or the last?

2) No offence, but what kind of anti-homosexual are you then?

First rule of war: Know thy enemy.

Is less important than the second rule.

I am extremely curious. I don't fear what I do not understand. I seek to understand it. I have but 1 fear and that is needles. Which I will conquer.

Bull****; We all fear what we do not understand, it is a basic survival reaction.

I used to be a bit of a xenophobic ****, because I did not understand. I came to understand by asking lots of stupid questions of various patient, amused, and confused people.

Kudos on deciding to tackle your fear... although how you'll do that without a doctor is beyond me.

And yes the lack of fear mixed with curiosity has nearly been the death of me on several occasions.

Really? Mine is not knowing when to shut up and walk away, even if I am right. Then it's the lack of fear thing... I think.

If you google 1973 apa homosexuality you will find allot of interesting reading sadly in the most reputable sources the credited parties writing the info are prominent members of either a pro or anti homosexual org. I trust neither to not put a biased spin on the events. As 1 one wishes to discredit the events and the other wishes to hide there lobbying/involvement and to build up prceeding as strictly scientificly motivated.

If they date back to 1973 then anything either side has in the form of backing has long since been obsoleted.

The facts as I glean them: This happened in 1973 and was pushed through by the Gay Activists Alliance but ultimately was needed as "mental illness" carries such a stigma
I can readily agree with that. I like to hope we have moved past the 'running about hands in the air dancing behavior' due to over reactions about classifications. Perhaps not though as so many went Nazi about it.

Again; 1973 = way old.
Again; Homosexuality as a mental illness? See links, up there ^^.

I've changed your quote in this next part as it confused the forum-engine, and Jacks', who seems incapable of reading anything properly.

Moving on... (QUOTE = same as before)"sloppy, slovenly, slipshod, sleazy science-social and cultural and the theological value judgments, cloaked and camouflaged in the language of science, without the substance of science.(/QUOTE)
Meaning there was no good evidence to prove it such. Many reputable sources claim empirical evidence that supports homosexuality as normal But rarely did any site mention what this "empirical evidence" was.

You can't have been looking very hard, then. I googled my "evidence", if you will, in about five minutes.

1 site mentioned a study in conjunction with that statement about a study involving hetero and homosexual couples in which, though there were differences, they both scored in the normal range. Which I guess that's a closed case, your right I am wrong... unless homosexuality is a healing the brain goes through as a result of some psychological trauma as I have suggested previously.

If you are referring to the "psychological trauma" that I think you're referring to, then it seems you are confusing homosexuality and paedophillia.
It causes "power" issues, which have nothing to do with sex.
And sometimes "victim" issues, for example "I am a paki and deserve to be bashed". Horrible, but it does happen.

What is so hard to except about my saying there is a reason they are gay other then 'there just gay'. I don't by the random queer effect concept it doesn't make sense on any level. In science everything has a cause and effect. We know the effect. Whats the cause?

I cannot accept what you are saying because you are not saying "What is the reason for homosexuality" you are saying "This is the reason for homosexuality".
I don't buy the random chance argument either.
There are many theories as to the cause, but at the moment they are just that; Theories. This is why I take scientists over zealots; Scientists admit "We don't have all the answers, and maybe we never will, but we'll keep looking", Zealots insist that "We already know everything, we already have the answer, and that answer is [insert deity here]".

I could be wrong that it could be a psychological trauma in the formative years and that is how they healed. It might not be that it all. a combination of things or something else entirely.

I suppose I could be wrong and it could random. But in my opinion due to my observations it's not.

Judging by the shift in your typing; You've really started thinking about this, haven't you?

Can I ask; What are your observations?

Sorry for the missing words and letters in my last couple posts I got a throbbing headache from watching/listening to a bad youtube mashup my brother sent me a link to and it's messing with my already paltry typing skills.

Meh, 'sall good.
__________

Finished! \(^o^)/

 

[Firefly]

write it in Word first

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I got a throbbing headache from watching/listening to a bad youtube mashup my brother sent me a link to

that's the worst excuse I have ever heard for anything.

 

[Crotale]

While the social stigma still attached to homosexuality was strong in the promotion of Prop 8 and is what helped to garner the votes it received, the court's decision is one of Constitutionality. You all can argue whether homosexuality is a normal, immoral or whatever, but the Constitution won this round.

Interesting to note, in case any of you missed this, but the lawyer fought the case for overturning Prop 8 was none other than conservative Republican former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who was a Bush appointee.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

While the social stigma still attached to homosexuality was strong in the promotion of Prop 8 and is what helped to garner the votes it received, the court's decision is one of Constitutionality. You all can argue whether homosexuality is a normal, immoral or whatever, but the Constitution won this round.

Interesting to note, in case any of you missed this, but the lawyer fought the case for overturning Prop 8 was none other than conservative Republican former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who was a Bush appointee.

You lie! It was all the work of an Obama Activist Judge™!

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud1YMaf9ji8&playnext=1&videos=-_zkLPoiXYY

 

[Sir_Brizz]

While the social stigma still attached to homosexuality was strong in the promotion of Prop 8 and is what helped to garner the votes it received, the court's decision is one of Constitutionality. You all can argue whether homosexuality is a normal, immoral or whatever, but the Constitution won this round.

Interesting to note, in case any of you missed this, but the lawyer fought the case for overturning Prop 8 was none other than conservative Republican former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who was a Bush appointee.

I think it's safe to say that this is a Constitutional ambiguity. Any judge could have easily argued either way.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

I think it's safe to say that this is a Constitutional ambiguity. Any judge could have easily argued either way.

It really isn't...

 

[MrSmiles]

Which is more unconstitutional; The law that 7 million people voted for or telling them they're vote doesn't matter?

I don't care one way or another if gays get married or not. It'll only be a marriage recognized by the state.

 

[TWD]

Which is more unconstitutional; The law that 7 million people voted for or telling them they're vote doesn't matter?

In fact telling 7 million people that their vote doesn't matter is completely constitutional. It's one of the things that makes the document so effective. It was crafted to handle exactly this kind of situation. There are checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of the minority.

However, I find it strange that nobody ever mentions the thing that I find the most disturbing about this whole affair. This wasn't just a law. It was a constitutional amendment. The ability to amend the constitution is one of the people's ultimate tools to keep the government in line. The whole reason this was passed as an amendment was because the people didn't like the decisions the court was rendering. Now the courts are telling us that they can trump even that. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that when we get into the whole state constitution vs federal constitutional, but I still find the whole turn of events disturbing.


There's a few other arguments I've seen used in support of Proposition 8 that I'd like to clarify as well. For instance, it seems to me that some people are arguing that marriage is not a right. I might have agreed with you at one time, but I no longer feel that way. It truly is essential to the human race, and those that have the ability to be married should do so. This does not change the fact however that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. In my view gay marriage is diametrically opposed to everything I believe a marriage to be. They simply aren't the same thing, and they should not be treated as such under the law.

 

[Zxanphorian]

TWD: is your view on marriage a theological one, or legal, ethical/moral, or a mix of them? If it is mostly theological, then the definition should not be treated as such under law.

 

[Peavey]

I support pluralistic marriage

Dude I totally agree, but that's kind of off topic.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

It really isn't...

It really is...

 

[N1ghtmare]

In fact telling 7 million people that their vote doesn't matter is completely constitutional. It's one of the things that makes the document so effective. It was crafted to handle exactly this kind of situation. There are checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of the minority.

However, I find it strange that nobody ever mentions the thing that I find the most disturbing about this whole affair. This wasn't just a law. It was a constitutional amendment. The ability to amend the constitution is one of the people's ultimate tools to keep the government in line. The whole reason this was passed as an amendment was because the people didn't like the decisions the court was rendering. Now the courts are telling us that they can trump even that. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that when we get into the whole state constitution vs federal constitutional, but I still find the whole turn of events disturbing.

Well personally I am opposed to the progressive movement's referendums and popular voting when it comes to law. Somehow I find the introduction of a representative eliminates many of the problems found in true democracy.

Plus I believe this was a California State constitutional amendment... against a ruling made by the California courts. In this case, it wasn't California courts overturning a issue that had already been discussed, this was a federal court saying California's law does not comply with the US constitution.