Political Crossfire Forums

[Wallie_x]

The clamor for 'equal rights' by liberals and gays for their lifestyles and views has more than captured its share of media attention these last few years. And with the fallacious idea of moral relativism sweeping a 'dumbed down' and P.C. Americana academia, the most recent under 25 generation has shown more acceptance of gays than any preceding one. To the credit of the gay propaganda machine, it looks like the gay community may well be pulling off their play on morals and facts.

But!!! I've done some research and it isn't good. You may judge for yourselves.

An Interview With Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York

Quote: Question: What pathologies are seen in homosexuality?

Answer: Besides the family backgrounds, you also see more suicide and depression. Even in cultures where there is little social sanction against homosexuality, such pathology does not disappear. You also see more narcissism in homosexuality. And if you've been around many gay men for very long, you notice an element of compulsivity. Some of these men are seventy years old and half the things in their houses are still phallic symbols.

Question: How do you think most people form their opinions about whether homosexuality is disordered?

Answer: Most people form their opinions from the social group they're in. There's strong anti-gay feeling in some social subgroups, whereas on the other hand, liberals almost automatically assume the condition is healthy. I'd guess only 1% of the people came to their conclusion as a result of careful, reasoned thinking. Of course, people don't have time to study every issue.

There are other distortions of the facts that are less benign. Normalizing homosexuality is one of them. Science has to be consistent in its understanding of what is abnormal; it's all got to hang together logically. To call homosexuality normal, and other sexual deviations like coprophilia or necrophilia abnormal, is logically inconsistent. Beyond that, we musn't distort the truth by calling homosexuality normal. The term "normal" must mean something. Because homosexuality is so clearly bound up with pathology--and because we see so many Freudian-type backgrounds in the histories of homosexuals--we have no justification for labelling the condition "normal."

Question: Do you think homosexuality will ever be completely acceptable in our society?

Answer: I doubt we'll ever have any society that gives equal status to homosexuality. We've had thousands of cultures, and it's never happened. This is anthropogically universal. The sanction has varied from stoning homosexuals to death, to granting them more or less equal freedom, but never has any society granted them status parity.
There's never been a culture which hasn't seen gays as "men with something missing."
From: Understanding How We Think about Homosexuality
by Linda Nicolosi How We Think About Homosexuality


Quote: Q: How would you distinguish between someone with same-sex attractions and someone with deep-seated homosexual tendencies?

Fitzgibbons: Those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies identify themselves as homosexual persons and are usually unwilling to examine their emotional conflicts that caused this tendency. These individuals in the priesthood have a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual, insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males and an inordinate need for attention. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist, author and contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's document "Homosexuality and Hope."

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons says:

Strange, the wording of these to respected doctors sounds so familiar..deja vu?

Quote: A recent study of Massachusetts teenagers, published in the American Journal of Public Health (Anne H. Faulkner and Kevin Cranston, "Correlates of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in a Random Sample of Massachusetts High School Students," February 1998, p. 264) discovered that self-identified gays were:

1)nine times more likely to have reported using alcohol on a daily basis;

2)six times more likely to report having recently used cocaine than their heterosexual counterparts;

3)nineteen times more likely to report having used cocaine on ten or more occasions per month;

4)five times more likely to report having used other illegal drugs, including cocaine, twenty or more times in their lives;
nearly seven times more likely to report ever having injected an illegal drug;

5)fifty percent more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have considered committing suicide.

The average homosexual of any age is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual (Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, The Homosexual Lifespan, Family Research Institute, Feb 14, 1992).

Life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS is about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual (Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, The Homosexual Lifespan, Family Research Institute, Feb 14, 1992). Surprisingly, AIDS has only a modest effect on the average life expectancy of a homosexual male. The average age of men dying from AIDS is 39. The average age of homosexuals dying from all other causes is even more revealing: 41. Only one percent die of old age. In study after study, less than three percent of all homosexuals surveyed are over the age of 55.

Why is homosexuality such a dangerous lifestyle? Part of the reason is the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals. Homosexualities (1978, page 308) an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous" (defined as 10 or fewer lifetime partners). Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.


Quote: It is important to recognize the linkages among the component parts of the sexual revolution. Permissive abortion, widespread adultery, easy divorce, radical feminism, and the gay and lesbian movement have not by accident appeared at the same historical moment. They have in common a declared desire for liberation from constraint--especially constraints associated with an allegedly oppressive culture and religious tradition. They also have in common the presuppositions that the body is little more than an instrument for the fulfillment of desire, and that the fulfillment of desire is the essence of the self. On biblical and philosophical grounds, we reject this radical dualism between the self and the body. Our bodies have their own dignity, bear their own truths, and are participant in our personhood in a fundamental way.

[Protostar]

Normal is a point of view. Whats normal to one person is abnormal to the next.

[Random Evil Guy]

it's not normal, but so isn't being left handed either. it deviates from the norm. so to say that something is wrong because it isn't normal, is a logical fallacy...

btw, it is natural.

[Enoch]

Wow, that was a rather long, and pointless, post filled with little more than hasty generalizations and ad hom attacks on homosexuals.

Speaking from experience, part of the reason for an increase in drug addiction, alcohol abuse, and depression is the constant messages (such as these) that we are less than human.

You can try to write this off and simply research, and nonjudgemental. But, you would be lying. The fact is this: gay men and women are told, day after day after day, in so many ways, that we are sick, evil, disgusting, and unwanted. Hearing that long enough will cause some serious damage.

[Prole]

What exactly is your point, Wallie? What difference does it make how the average homosexual lives their life?

Also, your sources are completely rubbish.

For Professor Goldberg, City College of New York is not by any means a reputable school in terms of leading the field in research, nor is a sociology professor a good source for the behavior of individuals; he really doesn't have the credibility to make such claims without a wealth of sources backing him up. Besides, with one of his claims he is COMPLETELY off-base. On whether homosexuals will ever be granted equality, he said:

We've had thousands of cultures, and it's never happened. This is anthropogically universal. The sanction has varied from stoning homosexuals to death, to granting them more or less equal freedom, but never has any society granted them status parity.
There's never been a culture which hasn't seen gays as "men with something missing."

First off, there are and have been many cultures which granted full equal status to homosexuals. Throughout ancient Greece homosexuals were equal to heterosexuals, and today throughout Scandanavia homosexuals are on completely equal social and legal levels with heterosexuals. So yes, there has been equal treatment of homosexuals.

Second, the "It's never happened before, so it can't possibly happen" logic, even if it weren't based on an untruth, is a complete logical fallacy. 300 years ago, I could have said, "Religious minorities will never gain equal treatment," or 100 years ago I could have said, "Women will never gain equal treatment," and my logic would have been just as valid as it is today: not at all. Guess what: women and religious minorities are equals all around the world. Homosexuals are too in some areas.

Fitzgibbons claims that:

Those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies identify themselves as homosexual persons and are usually unwilling to examine their emotional conflicts that caused this tendency.

What causes one to be attracted to members of the same sex in addition to or in lieu of members of the opposite sex isn't really known. So claiming that "emotional conflicts" are what causes it is sheer idiocy. As is stating homosexuality is a result of a "lack of male confidence" as he later claims.

As for your final source, Wallie, relying on research from 1978 is pretty idiotic when it comes to any study of human psychology, especially sexuality. Get some recent research by credible doctors who don't have to rely on religion to justify what is a scientific issue, and then you might have a leg to stand on. But until then, all you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

[Wallie_x]

I am amazed by the trivialization of your answers. Short and sweet, there appears to be little that is 'normal' in the majority of homosexual behavior. That is contingent, of course, on ones views holistically. If one throws the untenable existential bullcrap of moral relativism into the fray (in which one must sacrifice their intellect to the false god of secularism to believe at face value) then of course gays have an argument for 'normalcy' albeit a weak one.

Quote: GAY MARRIAGE
What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability."60 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.61 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning.

Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are.62 Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for "cruising" will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.
.Different source: same outcome

These are the statistical facts. I believe they speak for themselves

Prole wrote: What exactly is your point, Wallie?

My point? Even I didn't know how truly rampant sexual promiscuity is among gays. Over indulgence in anything (especially sex) is a sign of deeply unfulfilled needs. The person uses whatever tool (usually one that temporarily alters their reality) as a means of gratification to quiet the voice of dissatisfaction within their soul.

The left, and the gay community, are in adamant denial of the spiritual reality within themselves. They reduce the latter to trivialized simplicity. This is a grave error.

Gays seem also to be in adamant denial of the facts. Most people don't know the statistics (I didn't). I am simply posting the facts so everyone (gays included, but especially Mary-Fairy liberals) may make a better and more competent choice when making decisions regarding gay issues.

[The Grandmaster]

Wallie_x wrote: That is contingent, of course, on ones views holistically. If one throws the untenable existential bullcrap of moral relativism into the fray (in which one must sacrifice their intellect to the false god of secularism to believe at face value) then of course gays have an argument for 'normalcy' albeit a weak one.


I see again and again your insistence on attaching moral relativism, indicating no doubt you believe morality is absolute. The funny thing here is, you go on to say that to believe in moral relativism to so sacrifice one’s intellect to a false god. The irony is, the believer of moral absolutism must rest their arguments on invisible cartoons and magical fairy tales in the sky. So I’d ask you, which seems more intellectual, a person who uses reason to come to a cogent conclusion, or a person who sticks their fingers in their ears to reason and claims everything is the way it is because magical fairly tales gods in the sky tell them it is?

One of these people sounds reasonable. The other sounds like a raving lunatic.

PS. The absolutist is the lemming my friend, because it is he who blindly follows some book of fables for his values, while sane people actually think things out for themselves. :wink:

[George W Bush]

Grandmaster, once again, hit the nail on the head.

I want to highlight in Wallie-X's thought pattern, a dramatic inconsistency that bears mentioning.

As 'disordered' as gays are to Wallie, the witch-hunt ethic among Wallie's peers does nothing more than enhance the disordered condition. That is, in a society that burns people for their "choice", a society that considers sexuality a disorder cannot compete.

Wallie, I am hoping you are of the opposite persuasion. That people who are disordered do not need to be trashed or ridiculed for their condition. That they need to be HELPED.

However, you seem defeated. 'Liberals', as you insist, are the cause behind the initiative to get the word out that gays are disordered.

This is the typical excuse of someone who wants to blame someone else. But, I hope you will see the following points:

Liberals want to accept that people are not disordered as the American Psychological Association indicates in the 1970's era declassification of homosexuality as an illness.

Conservatives want to accept that people who are gay choose to be gay because the American Psychological Association indication of homosexuality not a disorder.

In your mission to cure others of a largely unaccepted disorder, make sure you understand your own sides position first. That is, train your peers to understand that being gay is allegedly not a choice.

BTW, (this may surprise you, maybe not) I strongly agree with the point that some homosexuality is related to a disordered childhood. I have gone up against the most militant homosexuals on this issue. But, I refuse to hate anyone who is disordered - unlike the Family Christian movements, whose adherence to God contradicts their hate against "f**s". The point is this: you lose credibility when you seem to take part in this right wing dogma of hatred against gays. Since it SEEMS that way, it could be wrong. I hope its wrong. I hope you correct me.

[Wallie_x]

The Grandmaster wrote: I see again and again your insistence on attaching moral relativism, indicating no doubt you believe morality is absolute.

Morality an absolute? Show me where I've ever said such a thing? Your reasoning is shear fallacy: just because I do not believe in moral relativism, it does not necessarily follow that I believe that morality is absolute.

What you fail to see is moral relativism is based on a self contradictory absolute. When one says: 'There are no absolutes' one is postulating an absolute which is self contradictory.

The same lunacy applies to moral relativism since its primal tenant* is postulating a self contradictory absolute: 'morality is relative' which is inferring an absolute. By your own reasoning it is you who believes in moral absolutes, not I. so... :moon:
* disprove the primal tenant and the theory is worthless

Later The Grandmaster wrote: The irony is, the believer of moral absolutism must rest their arguments on invisible cartoons and magical fairy tales in the sky. So I’d ask you, which seems more intellectual, a person who uses reason to come to a cogent conclusion,

The irony is: I am saying no such thing. It is your stereotyped ideas of people who are not beholden to your beliefs that are extremely bigoted, generalized and narrow minded. So all people who do not believe in moral relativism are:
"or a person who sticks their fingers in their ears to reason and claims everything is the way it is because magical fairly tales gods in the sky tell them it is?" but yet the simplistic mind predicates presuppositions that are preposterously and overly bigoted and the believes he has an opened mind?? No wonder you believe in moral relativism.

Simpletons seem to think morality is a defined set of black and white static rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would take a 10 page treatise to explain this. So if you don't know why I say such a thing then stop haunting those places that appease your shallow ideas and do some real philosophical research from unbiased sources.

George W Bush wrote: Grandmaster, once again, hit the[label anyone who disagrees with me as a bigot] nail on the head.

Emphasis added. :roll:

[The Grandmaster]

Wallie_x wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: I see again and again your insistence on attaching moral relativism, indicating no doubt you believe morality is absolute.

Morality an absolute? Show me where I've ever said such a thing? Your reasoning is shear fallacy: just because I do not believe in moral relativism, it does not necessarily follow that I believe that morality is absolute.

What you fail to see is moral relativism is based on a self contradictory absolute. When one says: 'There are no absolutes' one is postulating an absolute which is self contradictory.

The same lunacy applies to moral relativism since its primal tenant* is postulating a self contradictory absolute: 'morality is relative' which is inferring an absolute. By your own reasoning it is you who believes in moral absolutes, not I. so... :moon:

:lol: You just mooned me, and bitched at me for something while simultaneously committing the same fallacy you have accused me of, a strawman!

Show me where I claimed morality was Relative! :lol:

If both are supposed to be faulty, why please tell me, from where are we to derive morality?

My only claim was that the moral absolutist relies on a posit that is undemonsratable, and so is not a offering a convincing argument. Your half hour long diatribe about me being a moral relativist was an idea entire of your own invention.

Wallie_x wrote: Later The Grandmaster wrote: The irony is, the believer of moral absolutism must rest their arguments on invisible cartoons and magical fairy tales in the sky. So I’d ask you, which seems more intellectual, a person who uses reason to come to a cogent conclusion,

The irony is: I am saying no such thing. It is your stereotyped ideas of people who are not beholden to your beliefs that are extremely bigoted, generalized and narrow minded. So all people who do not believe in moral relativism are:
"or a person who sticks their fingers in their ears to reason and claims everything is the way it is because magical fairly tales gods in the sky tell them it is?" but yet the simplistic mind predicates presuppositions that are preposterously and overly bigoted and the believes he has an opened mind?? No wonder you believe in moral relativism.

You continue to stick your foot in your mouth by committing the same fallacy you have accused me of, and doing it quite vehemently, which only serves to make you look even worse. Again, me being a moral relativist is entirely your own invention. I have yet to commit to a position on where morality is derived from. :wink:

And it is not bigoted to think people odd for talking to invisible people Wally. I simply wonder why they are talking to invisible people, and trying to get me to do the same.

Wallie_x wrote: Simpletons seem to think morality is a defined set of black and white static rules. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We finally agree on something.

Wallie_x wrote: It would take a 10 page treatise to explain this. So if you don't know why I say such a thing then stop haunting those places that appease your shallow ideas and do some real philosophical research from unbiased sources.

No Wally, do tell. If morality is not absolute, and not relative, when pray tell, what is it? Merely talking down to us and claiming to know when not demonstrating you actually do isn’t good enough.

[BastionOfSanity]

The only thing humans do that isn't natural is exert authority.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote: btw, it is natural.


Sexuality is a process developed in order to aid in reproduction. Since homosexuality does not aid in reproduction, it is therefore not natural.

[The Grandmaster]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: btw, it is natural.
Sexuality is a process developed in order to aid in reproduction. Since homosexuality does not aid in reproduction, it is therefore not natural.

So? Sex is also for pleasure and enjoyment. Something’s purpose is what it can be used for. It is natural for us to develop new means to utilize that which already exists. As Galt once said, humans building tankers to carry oil is also natural, because out ability to reason allows us this ability.

Then again, whether it is natural is wholly irrelevant.

[Wallie_x]

By your own words:
The Grandmaster wrote: PS. The absolutist is the lemming my friend
So by your own reasoning people who believe in moral relativism are 'lemmings'? (Since moral relativism's is based fully on one absolute premise? [see above]) You just killed the moral relativist argument (again).

It was your unfounded and bigoted ranting that elicited my response so yes, I am human and will admit the error. You did not state a belief in moral relativism. But as for your other statements:

The Grandmaster wrote: The funny thing here is, you go on to say that to believe in moral relativism to so sacrifice one’s intellect to a false god. The irony is, the believer of moral absolutism must rest their arguments on invisible cartoons and magical fairy tales in the sky. So I’d ask you, which seems more intellectual, a person who uses reason to come to a cogent conclusion, or a person who sticks their fingers in their ears to reason and claims everything is the way it is because magical fairly tales gods in the sky tell them it is?

And this is not bigoted diatribe?

[Enoch]

Wallie_x wrote: By your own words:
The Grandmaster wrote: PS. The absolutist is the lemming my friend
So by your own reasoning people who believe in moral relativism are 'lemmings'? (Since moral relativism's is based fully on one absolute premise? [see above]) You just killed the moral relativist argument (again).

That is nothing more than a semantics argument. If you have nothing more than an argument of semantics, then you really have nothing.

Moral relativists, such as myself, don't believe in absolutes in terms of morality. What is right for you, may not be right for me. Or, it may not be right for you tomorrow.

Take, for example, murder. I think it is wrong to kill a man. However, I don't think it is wrong to kill a man in defense of your life or the lives of those around you. Whether murder is right or wrong is a relative concept. That is, it is relative to the situation at hand.

Moral relativism is the only concept that makes sense. How can one claim that what is moral or immoral is not dependent on the situation and people involved?

[Wallie_x]

UrielsFyre wrote: That is nothing more than a semantics argument. If you have nothing more than an argument of semantics, then you really have nothing.


This statement shows objectively that you know precious little about the rules of logic and debate. Next please...

(But since I'm a nice guy, here I'll help you: More on Logic)

[Enoch]

Wallie_x wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: That is nothing more than a semantics argument. If you have nothing more than an argument of semantics, then you really have nothing.


This statement shows objectively that you know precious little about the rules of logic and debate. Next please...

(But since I'm a nice guy, here I'll help you: More on Logic)
I know all about debate, thank you very much. Arguing semantics gets people nowhere. It is not taking on the substance of the topic, nor the concept at hand. It degrades the debate in to nothing more than a debate of definition.

And you can save your condescending attitude.

[spearsy23]

Wallie_x wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: That is nothing more than a semantics argument. If you have nothing more than an argument of semantics, then you really have nothing.


This statement shows objectively that you know precious little about the rules of logic and debate. Next please...

(But since I'm a nice guy, here I'll help you: More on Logic)

"next please" you should hope someone else comes in to argue as you're not doing real well currently. Maybe lucky luke and you could argue.

[Random Evil Guy]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: btw, it is natural.


Sexuality is a process developed in order to aid in reproduction. Since homosexuality does not aid in reproduction, it is therefore not natural.

wrong. since homosexuality is observed in nature, it is natural.

not to mention, homosexual behavious(both sexual and relationship wise) have been observed in more than 1500 different species in nature....

[Zoot]

Since when did "normality" provide some indicator for how much the government can impose in equality and liberty?