Poop gate has been overpooped

[Grobut]

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35 U's and only one N? Rank amateurism! My displeasure is evident!!!

 

[dragonfliet]

The key word here is 'attraction' they are all 3 abnormal (as defined by what is geneticly predisposed for our species and normal behavior for procreation).

Here is why you shouldn't be allowed to speak. Normal is NOT defined by what is related to procreation. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but not everything revolves around simple procreation. For instance, taking care of older people has nothing to do with procreation--would you say that it is abnormal that humanity cares for the elderly when many other animals do not? They have already procreated and their children have already procreated, according to you, it is somehow unnatural that they be kept around. It is abnormal.

Additionally, oral sex is apparently abnormal, as is masturbation, as is bringing the female to orgasm as neither have been shown to aid in conception and are worthless as far as procreation goes. In fact, a male receiving oral sex is deliberately counterproductive for procreation. You should tell your wife to quit with all of her "abnormal" behavior.

I could go on. Normal is NOT defined by what encourages procreation. Not even in the slightest terms. Even if you wanted to make such a completely inane and worthless argument, it could easily be said that gay couples are naturally selected for a non-procreating but essential role in raising children. By having non sexually threatening males and females who are unburdened with their own children, there is a safety net and further resource for child rearing.

~Jason

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Thouse are direct translations of the greek names, Fud, but it has nothing to do with the actual disorders and underlying causality and pathology of said disorders, that's just what they are called out of tradition, or put more simply: The Dictionary is not a good place to learn about Psychology, it is only a good place if your spelling sucks and you want to expand your vocabulary.

EDIT:

Here's another one for you: Francophile, AKA Francophilia; a person who is infatuated with the French language and/or French culture (and there exists a similar word for every culture you care to mention).

There you go, it has "phile" in it's name, so obviously, beeing a French-class geek is exactly the same as beeing a Pedophile or Necrophile! Yes indeed, you cannot be passionate about any language and not also rape children and corpses, the end.

I wasn't drawing any similarities based off the suffix. I am pointing out they are all 3 abnormal attactions. The fact that homosexuality isn't harmful wouldn't otherwise be enough to call for a reclassification.

My reason for harping this point is that whatever would cause such a shift is most likely not a positive thing/s and by trying to validate it as normal we allow for ourselves to dismiss it or misdirect our inquiries. I want people to know why they are the way they are. Too many people have killed themselves over the turmoil and imposed guilt (I.E. people blaming them or saying why don't you just be straight). I blame a societal misunderstanding of the "disorder" and all I seek is understanding there-of.

From my point of view it's simply an untruth, a falsehood, aka a lie to call it normal because we feel better about it.

----

And you balton make all of us Germans look bad. Thankyou. 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.

Dismissing homosexuality as a disorder and calling it natural because you need a explanation and since you can't find one you make one up, is no different then any1 else believing in something they can't see or prove. Whats that called again? Faith? and it's part of religon generally?

You may not like my logic there but IMO it fits. I want science. I want answers. I don't care if it kicks me in the comfort zones to have to have my friends and love ones labeled as having a disorder. I understand that there are many disorders (I have needle phobia) and they don't make you any less of a person, I think the rest of the world needs to understand that.

 

[dragonfliet]

You may not like my logic there but IMO it fits. I want science. I want answers. I don't care if it kicks me in the comfort zones to have to have my friends and love ones labeled as having a disorder. I understand that there are many disorders (I have needle phobia) and they don't make you any less of a person, I think the rest of the world needs to understand that.

What you have described is completely without science or logic. There is nothing in homosexuality that is a disorder. You decided that something was abnormal and then went about comparing its latinate to paraphilias--which is a bunk piece of non-science. And since I KNOW you don't know what that is: a paraphilia is an attraction to sexual objects which makes true emotions/bonding/reciprocal relationships difficult. Attraction to the same sex is NOT paraphilia (it is a reciprocal relationship), attraction to the dead IS. You, being ignorant of actual psychology and evolutionary biology, chose to say that since you disagreed with these things and so no direct procreation line of descent (which is a stupid, stupid way of deciding what is "abnormal") lumped completely different ideas together.

Additionally, a phobia is not in any way relatable to mutual sexual attraction and you are simply making use of latinate words you don't really understand to make it SEEM similar. Thanks for admitting your fear of needles, but it has nothing to do with healthy, loving and productive relationships between two men or two women.

~Jason

 

[Rambowjo]

buttitics

 

[Phopojijo]

The comparison wasn't to addiction it was to encouraging unhealthy behavior.

My opinion is prop 8 is ridiculous and it shouldn't even be on the table. You don't tell a drug addict "naw your fine. Here, have some more drugs." If there is a law put into place that makes same sex marriages legal that is basically what it's saying. It's not a religious question to me. It's a question of how we address human beings with problems. We made our buildings handicap accessible and yes it took laws to do it. I simply say we should be making the right laws and this isn't 1 of em. My view on it anyway.

No, it was to place it adjacent drug addiction to demonize it by proxy. Oh -- but you're in no way making a connection with it... you're just mentioning it to make a minor point.

We're not stupid, and we smell bull**** from a mile away. That sort of (albeit commonly effective for the general public) debating tactics {grouping two unrelated concepts together for emotional effect then feigning innocence when confronted about it} holds no water here.

To be clear what I am saying is:
1. Either for or against, having this as a law is a waste of taxpayer money and a incorrect way of dealing with this.

The problem isn't that we have this law in the process -- it's that we already had laws that made just about everything illegal associated with sexuality. Over time they have been repealed or whatever -- but it takes a lot of time to do that. And even when you freshly repeal a law, there will almost always be counter-movements to reinstate these laws. It's the normal legal process.

The law is a very organic beast that changes and sometimes changes back, and sometimes changes again until the cows come home... but it's the process. You wouldn't want a law to be static forever -- if only because the original parties involved may have been wrong or corrupt.

So it's not a waste of taxpayer money or incorrect way of dealing with this -- because the problem already existed for centuries... it's just a long process to fix.

2. Homosexuality is a mental Disorder. Trying to validate it as otherwise is tantamount to denial.

So you're saying you cannot debate with my point that it depends on the context of normal.

Excuse me while I get diagnosed for "agreeing with my girlfriend to not have children" disorder... because after all...

The key word here is 'attraction' they are all 3 abnormal (as defined by what is geneticly predisposed for our species and normal behavior for procreation).

Normal apparently is defined by procreation.

What I don't believe and am NOT saying is:

1. I think we can cure this mental disorder.
- I don't, at least not atm and till we can answer the question of should we even. Because this sort of disorder is so systemic it is a part of the fabric of who these people are. {{Phopo says -- Yeah, it's such a common disorder that it is more common than the genetic disorder of being Asian in the United States.}}
2. That equal rights don't apply to homosexuals.
***3. That homosexuality is an addiction.*** {{Phopo says -- Read Above}}
4. That it shouldn't be allowed to live together as a couple.

And finally on the subject of "curing" homosexuality I preasent mr. Tim Minchin with: 5 poofs and 2 piano's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI
the applicable joke is at 1:47

See bolded comments for responses.

----------------------

My reason for harping this point is that whatever would cause such a shift is most likely not a positive thing/s and by trying to validate it as normal we allow for ourselves to dismiss it or misdirect our inquiries. I want people to know why they are the way they are. Too many people have killed themselves over the turmoil and imposed guilt (I.E. people blaming them or saying why don't you just be straight). I blame a societal misunderstanding of the "disorder" and all I seek is understanding there-of.

... and how many people killed themselves over heterosexual relationships? Honestly.

You certainly live up to your nicksurname with your contributions to this thread.

You may not like my logic there but IMO it fits. I want science. I want answers. I don't care if it kicks me in the comfort zones to have to have my friends and love ones labeled as having a disorder. I understand that there are many disorders (I have needle phobia) and they don't make you any less of a person, I think the rest of the world needs to understand that.

No, you want it to be labeled as a disorder because it carries a condescending tone, as per your tactic of placing it adjacent drug addiction.

You want it to be thought of in a negative connotation because it's not something you understand.

 

[shadow_dragon]

The key word here is 'attraction'...

homosexual (ˌhəʊməʊˈsɛksjʊəl, ˌhɒm-)
— n
1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

heterosexual (ˌhɛtərəʊˈsɛksjʊəl)
— n
1. a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex

So one is a disorder and the other isn't?
Just sayin' 'cos... you know... you said it was the key word and it's like totally used for both man!

P.s/ I'm suprised this thread has still been going on for this long and still nothing of note has really been said.

 

[Zxanphorian]

P.s/ I'm suprised this thread has still been going on for this long and still nothing of note has really been said.

Welcome to politics threads...

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

Welcome to the world in general

 

[Festering Anus]

I read this thread as poop 8

 

[Agent_5]

This thread contains more poop than that anusman.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

This thread contains more poop than that anusman.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

90% of the arguments against this line of reasoning have focused on twisting, misinterpreting, or taking what I said out of context. Any1 with half a synapse should be able to see that it isn't normal. I don't see how that could even feasibly be open for debate. As such I don't get why it's even being debated, if we all suddenly started growing twice as strong we wouldn't call it normal just because it was so prevalent and positive. We wouldn't dismiss the black plague as normal just cause every1 had it. Why then is it that people insist on pretending that this is normal. It's not, plain and simple.

By descriptive logic I.E. the process used to classify things It seems to belong grouped with the disorders of Zoophilia and necrophilia. This being thus far that best logic else wise:

So one is a disorder and the other isn't?
Just sayin' 'cos... you know... you said it was the key word and it's like totally used for both man!

P.s/ I'm suprised this thread has still been going on for this long and still nothing of note has really been said.

Though that brings things back around to natural vs unnatural or what is a normal behavior for our species vs. unmoral.

The only way it could become normal is if as I heard 1 person postulate (in jest) that this was the next evolutionary stage in our species. Even in jest it strikes me as a curious thought.
If so would male and female evolve into separate species? Would there be both unisex and asexual variations or just 1 or the other and if so which is more likely.
-----------------
@ Phopojijo
I would argue with you over it but I am having trouble thinking of a way to explain analogies to you... What I am saying boils down to: I don't think we should encourage homosexuality (or discourage it for that matter) as a society. Live and let live. It has absolutely nothing to do with drugs or addiction.

I can agree with your point on the law, All I was saying there was I don't think there should be a law/s about who can and can't get married, as it is inherently a ceremony and though not always religious in nature, from my point of view it should fall under separation of church and state. The legal aspects should be handled by contract laws where the only info that defines the individuals involved capable to enter into said contract refers to age and mental capability. I am not calling for a new law I am saying the system needs an overhaul to remove laws that segregate.

The choice to reproduce or not is on the conscious level and does not preclude the urge to reproduce or at least go through the motions. Do you still wish to have sex with her? My guess is yes. You didn't loose your sex drive due to that decision.

Systemic to the individual, not our culture, though it is systemic in our culture also but that is beside my point. Which was: Since they have developed as homosexuals it it is part of who they are. Trying to remove part of sum1 sounds pretty harmful to me.

{{Phopo says -- Read Above}}

{{Elmur says -- Learn to read.}}

and how many people killed themselves over heterosexual relationships? Honestly.

None of my friends. And I am betting 99% of the time the reasons aren't the same. Who harasses straight people about being straight.

And you want it labeled as normal just in case the straight life doesn't work out for you. See how easy putting words in other people's mouths is.

Abnormal or unnatural doesn't always have a negative connotation nor in this case is my intent to imply such. It means it is different then what is expected and thus bears understanding why it is different. Not redefining terms so it's no longer different, that's a cop out.

English is a screwed up language the meanings of words have become muddled in the past 2 centuries. I think there-in lies the misconceptions here. I use all meanings of a word as needed and sometimes those meanings may be archaic apparently. I think the words gay and fagot are apropos respectively they used to mean happy and a bundle sticks. Neither had any negative connotation, where-as now if I was to say I through a fagot on the fire it would be more synonymous with homicide.

 

[dragonfliet]

90% of the arguments against this line of reasoning have focused on twisting, misinterpreting, or taking what I said out of context. Any1 with half a synapse should be able to see that it isn't normal. I don't see how that could even feasibly be open for debate. As such I don't get why it's even being debated, if we all suddenly started growing twice as strong we wouldn't call it normal just because it was so prevalent and positive. We wouldn't dismiss the black plague as normal just cause every1 had it. Why then is it that people insist on pretending that this is normal. It's not, plain and simple.

By descriptive logic I.E. the process used to classify things It seems to belong grouped with the disorders of Zoophilia and necrophilia. This being thus far that best logic else wise:

You still have no idea what you're talking about. "Any1" with half a synapse should be able to see that your definition of normal has no basis in reality. Normal does not mean the majority, it means occurring naturally (ie: it is "normal" for women to outnumber men in natural birth, it is "normal" for a small percentage to be born with either lower or higher than average intelligence--someone with slightly higher intelligence is not abnormal, despite being different, as their non-average intelligence is a "normal" occurrence). So unless homosexuality is caused by too much Will and Grace or getting a Barbe doll instead of a GI Joe, it is "normal." Let's look at your strength example. If, for instance, there was zero history of homosexual behavior and then there was lots, then it would certainly be abnormal (just like if everyone were suddenly 2x stronger). If, however, a percentage of the population manifested homosexual behavior it would be as if some people were naturally stronger than others/having different bodytypes despite similar genetic/environmental factors (both of which DO happen).

Or perhaps we are going to say that it is abnormal because other thriving animal groups don't have a significant proportion of homosexual behavior, except that also isn't true. Literally THOUSANDS of thriving species engage in homosexual behavior without some sort of species decline. Since it happens naturally and spontaneously across species (from people to monkeys to birds to freaking bedbugs!) in a variety of forms, it's safe to say that it is again "normal."

Of course, I'm sure that you should also know that one of the most striking aspects of Alfred Kinsey's sex research is that "normal" doesn't really exist, and that even among heterosexual couples of similar socio-economic backgrounds, the concept of normality varied widely and the couples practiced extremely different ideas. Your insistence on a singular normative state is wrong on so many levels it hurts.

As for your "descriptive logic" in arguing that because homophilia is grouped in naming with zoophilia, I remind you that you are simply describing latinate words which ALSO includes heterophilia. Just because it is out of general use doesn't change the fact that ALL types of attraction are called the same. Instead of saying IT SAYS PHILIA THEREFORE IT IS BAD HUR HUR HUR, perhaps you should understand how disorders are grouped and not grouped together (ie: the Romans didn't designate anything with philia to mean disorders) and realize that you need to decipher paraphilia (of which zoophilia and necrophilia ARE examples of) and attraction (which homophilia and heterophilia are, and NOT disorders).

There is no word misunderstanding, you haven't been somehow maligned by grammar nazis. You are saying that because it is not in the majority it is not "normal" and is thus a disorder. Your insistence on false normatives that are ridiculous from multiple vantage points. It is somehow preventing them from fully functioning adults (as a needle phobia could prevent someone from seeking necessary treatment). In other words, because they aren't the majority, there is something wrong with them, and then your definition of that wrongness is routed in the most backward, uninformed of evolutionary biology logic I have ever seen.

Honestly, such rampant ignorance an inability to see logic is why I feel the need to excuse myself for living in Texas.

~Jason

 

[Mister_Prophet]

9 pages. Any gays actually post yet?

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

You still have no idea what you're talking about. "Any1" with half a synapse should be able to see that your definition of normal has no basis in reality. Normal does not mean the majority, it means occurring naturally (ie: it is "normal" for women to outnumber men in natural birth, it is "normal" for a small percentage to be born with either lower or higher than average intelligence--someone with slightly higher intelligence is not abnormal, despite being different, as their non-average intelligence is a "normal" occurrence). So unless homosexuality is caused by too much Will and Grace or getting a Barbe doll instead of a GI Joe, it is "normal." Let's look at your strength example. If, for instance, there was zero history of homosexual behavior and then there was lots, then it would certainly be abnormal (just like if everyone were suddenly 2x stronger). If, however, a percentage of the population manifested homosexual behavior it would be as if some people were naturally stronger than others/having different bodytypes despite similar genetic/environmental factors (both of which DO happen).

Or perhaps we are going to say that it is abnormal because other thriving animal groups don't have a significant proportion of homosexual behavior, except that also isn't true. Literally THOUSANDS of thriving species engage in homosexual behavior without some sort of species decline. Since it happens naturally and spontaneously across species (from people to monkeys to birds to freaking bedbugs!) in a variety of forms, it's safe to say that it is again "normal."

Of course, I'm sure that you should also know that one of the most striking aspects of Alfred Kinsey's sex research is that "normal" doesn't really exist, and that even among heterosexual couples of similar socio-economic backgrounds, the concept of normality varied widely and the couples practiced extremely different ideas. Your insistence on a singular normative state is wrong on so many levels it hurts.

As for your "descriptive logic" in arguing that because homophilia is grouped in naming with zoophilia, I remind you that you are simply describing latinate words which ALSO includes heterophilia. Just because it is out of general use doesn't change the fact that ALL types of attraction are called the same. Instead of saying IT SAYS PHILIA THEREFORE IT IS BAD HUR HUR HUR, perhaps you should understand how disorders are grouped and not grouped together (ie: the Romans didn't designate anything with philia to mean disorders) and realize that you need to decipher paraphilia (of which zoophilia and necrophilia ARE examples of) and attraction (which homophilia and heterophilia are, and NOT disorders).

There is no word misunderstanding, you haven't been somehow maligned by grammar nazis. You are saying that because it is not in the majority it is not "normal" and is thus a disorder. Your insistence on false normatives that are ridiculous from multiple vantage points. It is somehow preventing them from fully functioning adults (as a needle phobia could prevent someone from seeking necessary treatment). In other words, because they aren't the majority, there is something wrong with them, and then your definition of that wrongness is routed in the most backward, uninformed of evolutionary biology logic I have ever seen.

Honestly, such rampant ignorance an inability to see logic is why I feel the need to excuse myself for living in Texas.

~Jason

I wasn't drawing any similarities based off the suffix. I am pointing out they are all 3 abnormal attactions. The fact that homosexuality isn't harmful wouldn't otherwise be enough to call for a reclassification...

90% of the arguments against this line of reasoning have focused on twisting, misinterpreting, or taking what I said out of context.

And most of Texas would prefer that you excuse yourself from the state.

Congratulations on twisting or misinterpreting everything I said. Seeding your rebuttal with insults certainly helps me consider what you said seriously.

However here is a go:

"You are saying that because it is not in the majority it is not "normal" and is thus a disorder."

No I am not. Percentage of population is irrelevant. Normality in the context of sexual attraction is defined by that which is needed to procreate the species. And actually most if not all of your assertions pertaining to what I said are false.

I believe that it is or at least can be psychological based off personal observations of friends and relatives I have that are gay. Animals can have mental disorders also. My wife has a cat that has a 'foot fetish', it's original owner abused it and had it declawed at too young of an age it makes love to the shoes and feet of my wife and I and likes to stick it's feet in our faces. So for an animal to be gay doesn't disprove that it could be a mental disorder or prove it to be natural. It complicates the 'why' not change the 'what'.

If I was to classify it I would call it a low level Functional disorder. you can and I am sure will disagree with that. It is however my opinion and entitled to it. Just as I suppose you are entitled to brow beat me with insults and the twisting of what I say into excepting your point of view. It won't work, my opinion is based on first hand observations over the past 32 years and personal research. Obviously I need to spend more time with the psychology books and lees time debating with forum thugs over my views.

Finally 1 more thing for you guys to go nazi on. Homosexuality is mind over instinct. But why? Genes? Mental Disorder? Confusion? Evolution?

Since you insist on calling it 'natural'.
-One gender is naturally attracted to the other because instinct dictates it's needed to perpetuate the species. Emotion allows rational minds to validate it.
-One gender is naturally attracted to itself because ____________________ ___________________________. Emotion allows rational minds to validate it.

Fill in the blank with a provable bit of scientific info just like the first statement.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

@ the tag... biblically God doesn't hate homosexuals he hates the act homosexual sex between men specifically and women ambiguously. If your gonna make fun of something it helps to have your facts straight. As for the incest the negative societal stigma is rooted in the puritan religious movement according to my understanding.

-----------------------------------------------

The established view in the field of psychology is that Zoophilia(the sexual attraction too and/or sexual interaction with animals) is a mental disorder.

The established view in the field of psychology is that Necrophilia(the sexual attraction too and/or sexual interaction with the dead)is a mental disorder.

These bear a common thread with homophilia (aka homosexuality) in that they are all unnatural attractions. They are all 3 a mental disorder. However only homosexuality has people trying to validate it and make it normal. In psychology this is known as denial.

I don't think we should validate the behavior with laws that create a sort of exclusion zone, I also don't think they should be discriminated against.

Unlike Zoophilia and Necrophilia, homophilia is a fairly victim-less disorder and those with it are very functional. That though further complicates things because the more a person is able to deal with a problem the harder it is for them to see one. That feeling is only compounded by time.

My opinion is prop 8 is ridiculous and it shouldn't even be on the table. You don't tell a drug addict "naw your fine. Here, have some more drugs." If there is a law put into place that makes same sex marriages legal that is basically what it's saying. It's not a religious question to me. It's a question of how we address human beings with problems. We made our buildings handicap accessible and yes it took laws to do it. I simply say we should be making the right laws and this isn't 1 of em. My view on it anyway.

oh great this moron is back

wow you literally said gay people have a disorder you really are retarded

 

[T2A`]

SLAPPA DE BALLSA

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

its like all the conservative posters on BU were like..."hey guys, I don't think we're posting enough ignorant **** on a daily basis, let's crank it into overdrive!"

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

its like all the conservative posters on BU were like..."hey guys, I don't think we're posting enough ignorant **** on a daily basis, let's crank it into overdrive!"

I am hardly a conservative and I never went anywhere.

Wooo insults let me try that.

The location of your head is inside your rectum. While your up there look for your remote. And if it's not to much trouble say hi to bush, he gets lonely without people on par with his intellect to talk to.