Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 03:36 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by derrida
Kulturkampf: What exactly is so gross about homos fags and gays? My girlfriend sucks cock but I still love her and think she's not disgusting. Do you have a girlfriend? Is she nice?
Yes, I have a girlfriend... I might marry her before the year is through. She is not nice, she's like me: a bigot. LOL.

Quote:
Many people who actually follow through on homosexual desires and fantasies are hedonists, otherwise they might decide that the risk of social rejection is simply too high a price for momentary pleasure, and sublimate their urges through paraphilias or aversive self-conditioning. Thus we get a larger percentage of honest-to-god cocksuckers who go a little too heavy on the toot and apple martinis, or whatever they drink.
Interesting analysis.

Sounds like these drug-using, homosexual hedonists would be superb parents. I think we should let them adopt, don't you?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 03:59 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Like I said, I've been in mental institutions before and most of the crazy people there weren't gay. Most of them were straight. I don't really think real craziness has anything to do with sexual orientation unless you think thinking about fat cocks can change your chemical makeup or brain structure. The only thing I can imagine coming out of it really wouldn't be craziness so much as a bad growth process mostly attributed to enviromental conditions. AKA, you. In fact, in all truth, most homosexuality could probably be related to enviromental conditions, aka you.
If all you're saying is that they are "Emotionally sensitive" we'll have to take a few paths here. First off, "Real men" have this thing with hiding their feelings (which would almost make them seem more sensitive) , everybody knows that, so who knows how emotionally sensitive they are. Secondly, gay people are generally harassed all the time (Everybody gets emotionally sensitive when they are being harassed) and some of them try to be more "Feminine" or open. Females are typically more emotional than males. This could be because they simply aren't psuedo-desensitized and/or because of hormonal reasons, but regardless the possibility that some gays are "Overly sensitive" compared to normal men is so moot in it's entirety it doesn't really require notice. Thirdly, men are more likely to get angry. Anger is emotional sensitivity.
thanks for your anecdotal rant that is....

irrelevent.

"I been to a mental institute and I met a lot of straight people, and I think gays aren't feminine, they are just open and sensitive, and etc. etc."

Superb!

I am not sure where the argument is. Let's try to be more concise and brief, to the point.

Quote:
"I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls"

They weren't scientific polls, the supposed scientificness of the poll you posted was already denied. The organization responsible for it has been ousted from the psychiatric community and none of their papers have been published. I understand, in the begining, you thought they were valid and now you are apparantly laughing at it like it's a joke. Nervous tinges.
They do not write papers, they compile evidence and data. You are a joke. Look at the sources.

First one cites a study done by Chicago university researchers.

Seocnd, third, and fourth all reference other external studies. etc. I could go through them all, but that is your job.

Quote:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

There's some other statistics, I'd post them but some of them have such a long line of VALID referances that I don't want to waste space.
(kind of like mine)

Quote:
I've known alot of gay people who do drugs, but even more straight people. This could be because i know more straight people than gay people, all i know is EVERYBODY DOES DRUGS. It's not isolated, and you're stupid for thinking so. There's gay bars, and normal bars, and other types of bars.
I love the personal anecdotes.


Quote:
Let's rip apart your stupid "Sources":

"43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition."

43%, huh? So does that mean the other 57% of bulimic men were straight? Drrrrrp. Jackass. You're so stupid you don't even know how to read, and apparantly neither do the sources you quote.
Wow, you got me; it is not like homosexuals make up 50% of the population -- JACKASS. 43% of bulimics are homosexuals, and what percent of people are homosexuals? Very few. Not even the 10% figure that is always cited.

Learn something.


Quote:
"Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health," the researchers reported (p. 556)."

Similar levels of social support, eh? Come on, we all know gays and lesbians don't get the same level of social support. For example, gay marriage laws. For example, being made fun of in school and other social situations. Etc. That's funny enough on it's own, but then you add in, "p. 556". Of what? Thanks for the information. You're obviously the copy paste king, same with your other "Sources". In fact, this can't even really be said to be "Your sources" but the sources of whatever source you ripped off.
They are quotes form a book that I got from the website, mate. Youshould learn something about quoting.

And I am the copy-paste king, so you will lose this debate.

When your argument resorts to: "Come on!, come on, we all know gays and lesbians don't get the same level of social support...." and then we trail of into marriage laws and bullying at school.

Gays in my school stuck with their own crowds and were not persecuted, generally they were left alone; I am not sure what their family lives were like. But, a psychologist came to a conclusion and worte such a report.

Quote:
"63 homosexual men and 14 homosexual women had considered seeking help to change their sexual orientation. Of these, 15 men and 2 women had achieved a change in their sexual orientation."

Geez what a large percentage . Did they try turning straight men gay, too?
It was of a sample, dumbass; of 656 and 43. I hae neve rknown anyone to say "I need help changing my sexual orientation." And so te very idea that such a large amount of people would seek as much is absurd to me. That is nearly 10% of homosexual men asking to be made straight -- sounds like a crisis of identity in many senses, a degree of uncertainty in self.

Quote:
"because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted."

Um, actually they did back in the early 1900's when they used EST and other crazy devices to try to turn people straight. Which brings us to you thinking gay people didn't exist before the 90's. Dumbass, here's a link essentially proving that gay people did exist before the 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...and_psychology
Some quotes towards the end, maybe.
I never said gay people din't exist, 'dumbass.' No large scale studies have been conducted on the percentages of homosexuals who have a desire to change their orientation, etc.

Quote:
Here's the quote of you not knowing that gay people existed before the 90's: "Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident, yet still they lead suicidal lifestyles. "
You don't know the nuances of words. Are you 15?

Of course I do know homosexuals existed before the nineties, I noted that they were probably in the closet. "Dumbass."



Quote:
If you read that page i linked, you'll notice persecution has been going on since studies have begun on it(early 1900's). For example, did you know they did EST(electro static shock therapy) castration, amputation... all kinds of crazy shit. Did you know in some countries they would put you to death? In america you would be imprisoned or incarcerated in a mental institution. In Europe they'd occasionally burn you. Who was it, oscar wilde? Wasn't he exhiled or something from his country for being gay then died shortly after from his over-sensitivity? You just posted an article about how even greece looked down on it. Oh, but wait, persecution wasn't evident.
While you're at it check out, "Reparative therapy".
If you were in the closet, there would not be persecution.

And this is not about the terrible things that have been done to people historically, so lay off.

Quote:
"But there are a plentiful amount of cases suggesting that it is possible to change your oreitnation sexually and completely, and what we can cnclude from that is up to you. "

Oh really, because i thought you just said, "because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted." (you know except in the early 1900's) hahahahaha. That's pretty funny. I like how you don't know absolutely anything, maybe you should go find another website to quote, but be careful! All i have to do is type your sources into a search engine and i can find which webpages you copy and pasted from, jackass. Like your other post where like three of the "Sources" were from the same book and you only sourced one of them for some stupid reason, mostly because the one you did source was sourced on the webpage EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
... .... ... ... ... ...
... ... .... .... .... ....
.. ...... ... ..... ... ......
Did you just realize I was ... copying off of webpages... just now... and did not know... I was providing hyperlinks to each of these webpages or what are you trying to communicate, cunt?
.... ...... ........ .......... .
.... ....... ......... ...... .
....................................

Quote:
"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids."

Hilarious considering you said something like 45% of men and 33% of straight women did drugs:
"as contrasted with 45% and 33% of the straight men and women, respectively."
According to your policy almost half of the population of straight males are, "no good for raising kids" and a third of the population of women. That makes for alot of orphans, eh?
It was not as high of a percentage. "Dumbass."

Quote:
"Some of the sources were Dutch, I remember reading; so I do know it is global"

Wow two countries makes it global. And yea, there's other countries who hate gays too, and some of them were in europe. DOUBLE TAKE.
What? Hahahahaha.

Quote:
"No, but they have a higher rate of chemical dependency as per the study above."

Higher percentage rate, right? Because there's probably more straight people, there's probably more straight people doing drugs and beating their children.
Quote:
"Facts are facts."

Studies and statistics aren't facts, jackass. Don't you know how to think?
Then what are facts?

Quote:
"I am not a vegan. So I am not concerned with any of that organic bit. "

What the fuck does that matter? There's still chemicals in coca-cola and nearly every type of refined or processed foods. And yes, they do have palpable bodily effects. That's why people drink caffinated drinks.
I just said I was not a vegan in response to some other post... What are.... okay.

Quote:
"No, they were generally more in the closet minus major metropolises."

Read above study, listen to David bowie or that one lesbian bitch. Gays did in fact exist before then. "Minus the major metropolises" you say. Oh, okay. So because they were in the closet in a place where they were more oppressed(and to this day are still more oppressed because there are lots of stories about people being beaten to death, to this day) it means they didn't exist nor were open. Could that non-openness have anything to do with the oppression? Could the "Fads" that came around after the 70's have anything to do with all the gay movements and the fact that it was removed from the list of mental diseases? Could the even more recent fad of the 90's be because it was recently removed from another list? I don't know. Just speculating.
How old are you? Obviously not very old.
You actually said something that deserves a response:

I am 21.

how old are you?

Quote:
"No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual."

Why are you an anti-homosexual? Give me one good reason.
It's a devious lifestyle that spreads diseases and is repugnant.

Quote:
"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Untrue. Maybe back in the day when they were molesting them with their instruments trying to turn them straight, but not so much anymore. And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints or the way they were born? Where do you draw the correlation, and where's your data supporting it.
Continue arguing against fact.

I want to hear more of your personal anecdotes.

Quote:
All of your data is impartial and biased. it's complete bullshit. You act like gays were never oppressed before, you're so ridiculously stupid. So far everything you've said has been untrue or absolutely retarded in and of itself or even completely contradictory. You accuse others of making a poor argument, but yours was the easiest to pull apart in a long time.
[size=18][/size

Find me some data that contradicts it that is not importail, and not bias, "jackass."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 05:12 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

So, basically, your argument is that you will do your damndest to persecute these people to the point of drug addiction to simply prevent them from being able to adopt. Gotcha.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 05:42 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immortal Goat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

So, basically, your argument is that you will do your damndest to persecute these people to the point of drug addiction to simply prevent them from being able to adopt. Gotcha.
Yes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 05:58 AM       
And therefor, based on numerous studies of your posts, and comparing them to other posts made by other members, I conclude that you are more inclined to irrational hatred towards other human beings, and therefor ill-suited for having children.

See how that works? I don't like you, so you shouldn't have kids. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't have kids.

I will readily admit that drug addicts and alcoholics shouldn't raise kids, but I also believe that bigots shouldn't raise them, either. Drug addiction and bigotry are both dangerous, bigotry even more so than addiction. Drug addiction has never caused international wars. Drug addiction has never caused the complete enslavement of a particular race in a country.

Bigotry is one of the most dangerous of man's inventions, and you seem to be full up on it. Is that really a suitable environment for children? A household where they will be taught that there are people out there that are subhuman? Kids will be kids, and kids are naturally violent. They will quite possibly actively beat homosexuals, thinking they are doing society a favor.

As I said, that is no place to raise a child. It's just too risky.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 06:39 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immortal Goat
And therefor, based on numerous studies of your posts, and comparing them to other posts made by other members, I conclude that you are more inclined to irrational hatred towards other human beings, and therefor ill-suited for having children.

See how that works? I don't like you, so you shouldn't have kids. You don't like gays, so they shouldn't have kids.

I will readily admit that drug addicts and alcoholics shouldn't raise kids, but I also believe that bigots shouldn't raise them, either. Drug addiction and bigotry are both dangerous, bigotry even more so than addiction. Drug addiction has never caused international wars. Drug addiction has never caused the complete enslavement of a particular race in a country.
What about the Native Americans? Many can argue that they are slaves to the bottle.

Quote:
Bigotry is one of the most dangerous of man's inventions, and you seem to be full up on it. Is that really a suitable environment for children? A household where they will be taught that there are people out there that are subhuman? Kids will be kids, and kids are naturally violent. They will quite possibly actively beat homosexuals, thinking they are doing society a favor.

As I said, that is no place to raise a child. It's just too risky.
Aw, well, I am sorry that you think my kids will turn into vicious folks who hand out ass-beatings.

I will teach my kids my ideas, and I will have many kids, and my kids will have their own kids, and maybe somewhere along the line the chain will be broken s it is anywhere, but before it is, there will be many conservatives with Spartan ethics.

The culture war isn't over.

And we are going to beat you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Pub Lover Pub Lover is offline
Näyttelijäbotti!
Pub Lover's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mogadishu, Texas
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 07:55 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
I could go through them all, but that is your job.
It's your opponent's responsibility to show that your sources are fair & balanced when it's the job of pundits & activists, which you largely quote, to force bias & take out of context any real study?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
The culture war isn't over.

And we are going to beat you.
Shouldn't we take out the Muslims & Chinese first?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie
No YouTube embeds in your sigs, poindexter.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
glowbelly glowbelly is offline
my baby's mama
glowbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cleveland
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 09:46 AM       
he's a fucking skinhead
__________________
porn is just babies as work-in-progress
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 10:19 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
What about the Native Americans? Many can argue that they are slaves to the bottle.
First you claim that the majority of gay people are drug addict alcoholics, which is admittedly caused by people like you on purpose, and now you are trying to claim that all Native Americans are alcoholics, too? Where are your "sources" on that one, huh?

Quote:
I will teach my kids my ideas, and I will have many kids, and my kids will have their own kids, and maybe somewhere along the line the chain will be broken s it is anywhere, but before it is, there will be many conservatives with Spartan ethics.

The culture war isn't over.

And we are going to beat you.
SPARTAN? You're trying to tell me that you are one of the last of an ancient military unit? I take it back, you shouldn't have kids, not because you are a bigot, but because you have sich crazy delusions of grandeur!

Oh, and I'm not a liberal. I'm just liberal about this one point. I am actually a moderate, but just to play your game a bit longer (even though I am tired of your 6 year old style of making the rules "I'm right so I win"), I will say this:

Let's look at the definition of "conservative", as presented by one of the very sites you used in your thread against that Greek Gayness that is so prevalent in society today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Burkean conservatives wish to conserve heritage; they advocate the current social climate. To a Burkean, any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Burkeans do not reject change, as Burke wrote "a state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation," but they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary.
So, by definition, you believe that our society is perfect (or at least was when white men could hold black slaves), and should not change? Or is it that it is allowed to change, but nevver due to a revolution (because what good ever came from a revolution anyway, right?)

Can a revolution not be organic? Maybe I am not completely understanding the terms used, but to me, at least, it seems that organic would mean something that evolves within the society for a long period of time, and a revolution (according to this)happens all at once? Preposterous idea. Revolution is an idea that grows within the minds of the citizens for a long time. It begins as agitation, and over many years, possibly decades or even longer, it grows until the idea becomes so big that society has the choice of either accepting the idea or killing those that hold it. Usually, both happen. Societty refuses the change at first, causing war, and then when the idea only burns brighter in the minds of those who hold it, society accepts said change and moves on to the next revolution (which I hear is going to be the next Nintendo product, but that's another story for another forum).

So, looking back at this definition, it seems to me that it is impossible for conservatives to win a culture war because revolution happens naturally. It is the way of the world. And revolutions, whether successful or failure, leave some mark on society. A mark that cannot be gotten rid of.

Oh, and chew on this, my Spartan friend. Rome fell due to staying static (or "conservative") in their ways. When a society refuses to change, corruption sets in, and weakness spreads. The only thing that saved that area is the Christian "Revolution". Now, it seems, a new revolution is needed to clear away much of the corruption and barbarism that has "organically" occurred in our society, much of which you and others like you are responsible for.

It seems you're going to get your wish. America is going to be the New Rome. Too bad that empire fell to barbarians.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #60  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 01:49 PM       
Quote:
"They do not write papers, they compile evidence and data. You are a joke. Look at the sources. "
Quote:
Find me somethhing in the source that talks about how these studies were conducted by non-objective sources.
From wikiepedia, although I do know this isn't in the "Source". (how would you find something in a non-objective source about how it's non-objective, when people are being biased and bitter do they generally go around proclaiming it, especially if they are trying to make 'valid' points..?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narth
I like the part towards the end where it calls them, "Heavily biased".

Read and shut the fuck up. You don't even know what you're talking about, it's so hilarious. I bet everytime you post you get more and more embarassed. Sure, all of your posts might not be from the same study, but it just goes to show that you post your studies without knowing any information about their validity. More than likely, you just went around and collected any studies that you felt were significant to your cause. This essentially shows that you're a stupid fuck, and your argument is just as lazy and poorly put together as your mind.


"I am not sure where the argument is. Let's try to be more concise and brief, to the point. "

Craziness has nothing to do with homosexuality. If ANY kind of craziness were to result DIRECTLY from it, it would be more of a neurosis caused by external stimuli. For your example you picked bulimia(which is purely external stimuli). Let's see who's, "At risk" according to wikipedia:

# Gay Males
# students who are under heavy workloads
[b]# those who have suffered traumatic events in their lifetime such as child abuse and sexual abuse[b]
# those positioned in the higher echelons of the socioeconomic scale
# the highly intelligent and/or high-achievers.

Again, external stimuli. Hell, according to that most of the people who are bulimic are probably smarter than you. I wonder if it's saying gays are smarter than you? Probably. Yes, i did pretty much just cut and paste the relevant parts. (gays are smarter than you)

You also posted something about emotional oversensitivity. I merely motioned that males are also emotionally sensitive. Like you, overly emotionally sensitive towards gays. Who knows, sometime soon you could become bulimic. I also mentioned this because you posted studies about "Gays" being "more emotionally sensitive" than normal men like it had some kind of relevance. I merely mentioned that that has more to do with CONDITIONING than anything else.

"hey do not write papers, they compile evidence and data."

Yea, real factual data. Did you know they often travel around the world and talk to every gay and straight male in the entire world just so the study can be absolutely true? Did you know they also compile in sociological and cultural data to compare it to? You just don't get that these studies are cheap. Rather than attributing them to social or cultural reasons (like any good scientist would do) they immediatly blame it on the gays(or at least, that's what you think since you apparantly didn't read them). That would sort of be like if there was a meterologist on tv who said, "Look, obviously these hurricanes are caused by Earth. We've pissed it off. Now we need to bring it special ceremonial virgins to throw into the volcano."
Use your brain, what did you post of this study? Nothing, some figures. Some numbers, nothing more. What the fuck kind of "Science" looks for shit like that? They aren't even real numbers because it's just a small piece of the pie. Real science takes "Numbers" then looks for things that "Causes" those numbers. Those "Experiments" had nothing to them other than the inclination to harm the gay image or something like that oh no wait they did find a cause and apparantly it was societal exactly what everyone's been saying and you've been arguing with congrats again.
The only use psychological statistics has, psychologically, is in the aid treating patients and finding remedies. Homosexuality isn't treated anymore, because there's no "cure". Sexual orientation is part of a socio-sexual complex developed throughout life manifesting generally within the early teens. It is possible to change that orientation, but generally there has to be an inclination to do so in the first place(the process can also be quite dangerous). So the only relevance these numbers have is for curiousities sake, and apparantly, so you can have something pointless to base your life off of. It doesn't really matter how much you hate gays, they aren't going away. In fact, more than likely people like you are going away.
Speaking of which, the only reason you act like you do is because you want to fit into some social circus tent. I think without it you are probably a very boring and uninteresting person. Therefore, you base most of your spectrum of beliefs and ideas onto that one ideal. I find it hilariously sad.

"First one cites a study done by Chicago university researchers. "

I wonder if that means it was done by Students?

"(kind of like mine)"

Yea, good ol' Narth, kicked out of the psychological scene. That must be such a disgrace.

"Wow, you got me; it is not like homosexuals make up 50% of the population -- JACKASS. 43% of bulimics are homosexuals, and what percent of people are homosexuals?"

Gee you wouldn't say thanks for reminding me. Regardless, the study was done on bulimics, not gays, and more straight males are bulimic than gays.
Also, you can't really know what percentage of the population is gay.

"They are quotes form a book that I got from the website, mate."

I just find it sad that in your "Essays" you don't post relevant information. You post quotes from books, and yet you don't say that they are all from the same book, nor do you give any information about the book. Which, again, makes your essay a poorly thrown together piece of shit full of "Copy and pasting" and not any detail or association. Essentially, what I'm saying is that you are probably so lazy you just copy pasted any pertinent information without going into the details of it. For all we know, everything you post could be impartial or just a downright lie, but apparantly just your interpretation of it is...

"And I am the copy-paste king, so you will lose this debate. "

Perfect logic If only mimicry could win debates past the gradeschool level.

"social support...." and then we trail of into marriage laws and bullying at school."

What do you call "Similar levels of social support" then? Please explain how they receieve the same levels of social support despite having people like you telling them their lifestyle is wrong? Seems pretty insupportive. How many straight people have their marriage rights revoked based on their sexuality? I threw in an etc. there because I figured you were smart enough to fill in the blanks, but apparantly not. Congratulations.

From the page the study was on:

"Additionally, the researchers found that the lesbian participants were the most frequent victims of physical intimidation and violence."
Gee, what social support.
It also says straight males often receive similar levels of harassment at school.
"38% of gay men and 31% of the lesbians admitted having been physically attacked during the preceding five years, with the rates for heterosexual men and women once again being proportionately lower, despite their much larger representation in the population"

"In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems. But they added that they were not suggesting--as did Bailey (1999) in a prominent prior study--that the higher level of mental disorders could be because homosexuality might constitute a "developmental error."
Could that be exactly what i said, on both accounts? Maybe you should look at that other study, if it's perverted enough you might be able to use it towards your goals

"It was of a sample, dumbass; of 656 and 43. I hae neve rknown anyone to say "I need help changing my sexual orientation." And so te very idea that such a large amount of people would seek as much is absurd to me. That is nearly 10% of homosexual men asking to be made straight -- sounds like a crisis of identity in many senses, a degree of uncertainty in self. "

Um, okay, then why even continue bitching? If the idea of that many gay people trying to become straight is absurd, what's your goal? To continue bitching and make points? Obviously they are going to have absolutely no effect. Secondly, you think 10% of the entire population of gay people took part in one single study? You're ridiculous.
A degree of uncertainty of self you say, could that have anything to do with social pressure and possibly family pressure, making them feel like if only they weren't the way they are they could be happy? "If only my nose wasn't so big! Then people would love me!" "If only I wasn't mentally retarded, then I would have friends". Come on man, do you ever think? I'm sure you've done the same thing before in some circumstance.

"I never said gay people din't exist, 'dumbass.'"

I couldn't be being sarcastic, could I? But you did say that before the 90's they were all in the closet, which was obviously proven wrong since they somehow had tons of them in mental institutions to electricute on a daily basis. Remember the end of requiem for a dream, where they keep shocking her and she gets crazier and crazier? It's basically treatment like that.
So yes, before the 90's gays WERE persecuted. I'd like to see you admit you were wrong on that, because you obviously were. Do you feel like a jackass at all? Jackass jackass jackass jackass jackasssss. I like arguing with you, it's so easy.

"You don't know the nuances of words. Are you 15? Of course I do know homosexuals existed before the nineties, I noted that they were probably in the closet. "Dumbass." "

I find all of that hilarious especially considering you didn't get the sarcasm/exageration/"Nuance" about gays not existing to be persecuted. And again, they weren't in the closet because there was tons of gay people in the 80's. God, haven't you ever watched an 80's movie or anything? I mean shit, the rocky horror picture show was made in 1975, and that's like one of the gayest things in the world.
Obviously you were wrong about the closet statement. Being 21 makes sense, because you don't seem to know anything about the time period before the 90's. I find it hilarious because it shows how dumb you are, you spend all your time trying to find "Data" on gays and miss so damn much, and look like such a fool.

"If you were in the closet, there would not be persecution. "

No, just the depression of never being sexually satisfied or accepted as who you are. That's a great idea, give them more psychological issues. Generally, that's why people come "out of the closet". Being, "In the closet" generally means you're living in FEAR of being yourself. Again, good job persecuting/oppressing with your mighty ideas, oh lord of psychology.

"And this is not about the terrible things that have been done to people historically"

Then maybe you shouldn't bring up the "Fact" that they weren't persucted before the 90's because they were all in the closet, you dumb fucking cunt. Don't bring up history if you don't want the actual truth on it, you dilusional twit.

"I was providing hyperlinks to each of these webpages or what are you trying to communicate, cunt? "

No, i could tell they were links. I was mainly talking about how you didn't really talk about the book you were getting all your ideas from. The other sites i was talking about i was guessing were probably sites(forums) you got the inspiration to learn about the book in the first place. There was only like 12 mentionings of that book on the entire internet, all of them white supremist or gay-hating.
I also couldn't find any of the stuff the book itself was supposidely quoting, although I do know the way that guy squeezed out of alot of potential law problems was by calling people gay. Which kind of makes anything he would've said on the topic pointless because it was all watching out for his asshole. Quite literally, perhaps ;/

"It was not as high of a percentage."
"so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids"

HAHAHAHAH this is great, this is where your ideas and hypocricies really start to fall apart. You say gays aren't good for raising kids because they do drugs and have psychological problems, however, alot of straight people have the SAME EXACT problem. If your logic was true you'd be saying that STRAIGHT PEOPLE CANT DO IT EITHER.
Besides, there's more straight people than gay people, so that 45% is a huge fucking number who are shitty parents.
I love this part of debates. Thank you, you just made my day complete.

"What? Hahahahaha. "

I'm glad you got the joke of how stupid you sound, but just in case you didn't I'll make it easier to see:
Some of the sources were Dutch so I do know it is global

"Then what are facts? "

Facts are real things that actually occur. For example, the numbers within the study itself may be a semblance of fact(and a very poor one considering), however, any ideas or results from it are unknown to be absolutely true. This is why when reading studies like this you often see phrases like, "This may indicate".

"You actually said something that deserves a response: "

Really because i saw a long line of responses before i got to this one.

"It's a devious lifestyle that spreads diseases and is repugnant."

Last i heard the statistics on aids was that women were more likely to contract it. Even more likely than gay males.

"Continue arguing against fact. "

They aren't facts, remember? And also, my response was pretty much the result that the studies you yourself posted suggested. I find that hilarious. You're the one arguing against facts. I'll post it again so you can revel in it:
"In speculating about the reasons for the higher level of psychological problems, the researchers offered the commonly proposed theory that social discrimination could be a source of the problems."
Here's what i said, in case you forget:
"And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints"

Did I win some points there? I certainly hope so, because your "Facts" are those "Studies" and those "Studies" are "Concluding" exactly what I "Said". So you're the one arguing against facts, buster jones.

"Find me some data that contradicts it that is not importail, and not bias, "jackass.""

Um, I did above when i posted how the study itself said that it was a societal thing. Essentially, that people like you cause them to be shitty. Basically, you are the cause of the thing you hate. You're kind of like them in a way, you are like their whorish mother who continually pops out babies for welfare money. Well, I hope you can buy enough cake with that EBT money to fill your gluttonous face with, you corpulent expression of your own angsty supposed virtues.

"Sounds like these drug-using, homosexual hedonists would be superb parents."

Did you know they often allow child molesters to adopt? Yes, it's true. When going through the process of adopting a child they do absolutely no background check, drug tests or anything else like that. I hope you can recognize the sarcasm in that.
Luckily when straight people get knocked up they do all kinds of tests to make sure the mother's not a crackhead. That's why there's no crackheads or babies born deformed

Since you have problems catching "Nuances", or sarcasm, the above was indeed sarcasm. They don't just adopt babies out to anyone, i find the idea that you think so absurd. You're obviously a fucking idiot.

"Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature."

Didn't you recently say that the "Gay trend" is getting worse and worse? Yea, it will probably continue to get worse. It's just like the women's movement, or the black movement, or any other movement that's around. You should just sit back and let the cards fall, because no matter how hard you try you're not going to change that.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 04:25 PM       
Do you even read the posts or do you just skim them? You pull up yet another biased source (The "Baptist Press.") Try getting a source from a respectable organization, like the NIMH or the American Psychiatric Association instead of an obviously and blatantly Christian and Bible-based source. You're probably going to argue that the BP isn't biased. Well, here, let me explain why it is:

Quote:
A 15-page majority opinion by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last year avoided several issues that conservatives say should be confronted before the nation embraces same-sex "marriage."
Every time the article writes the word marriage, it puts it in quotes, in obvious contempt. This indicates that the author of the article set out with an anti-homosexual agenda; clearly biased against them and highly likely to misinterpret the facts in their favor.

Quote:
"Even men and women who are homosexual and have been involved in homosexuality for years have told me frankly that they know of few if any long-term relationships -- male or female," he told BP.
Here's a tip: Personal testimony doesn't count as scientific in any respect. If I told you that every black person I knew steals stereos and listens to rap at 2 in the morning, does that mean you can draw any conclusion from it? Even if they told me so themselves?

Quote:
Evangelicals say that homosexual relationships will never bring satisfaction because, at the core, they involve rebellion against God. Writing in a Crosswalk.com commentary last October, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that marriage is the "culminating picture of creation’s goodness."

"Because of that void [the homosexual] is trying to fill it the wrong way and the only way he knows to fill it is through sexual encounters," Wilkins said. "But after the sexual encounter is over, the emptiness is even larger.
Biased. If you can't see it, you're just another bigot tool.

Quote:
Quote:
What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.
That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.
So does that mean heterosexual men are inclined to pedophilia? There seems to be a correlation there.

Quote:
Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).
Wait, this is golden. Please, dear boy, tell me, how did you find out about "bizarre" sexual acts if you haven't done any research on them? I would bet you dollars to donuts that you heard about it either from television, your straight friends, or a religious organization condemning the dangers of these practices. I'm not going to argue that fisting and that gerbil thing don't happen and I'm not going to argue that it's normal or healthy, because I don't believe that it is. However, these acts are rare and blown out of proportion to the point of absurdity, and they are certainly not limited to or indeed more prevelent among homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals. What I'm trying to say here is that these deviances are universal to human sexuality, not homosexuals alone.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.
People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?
No, homosexuals.
You didn't answer my question. What's the "nature?" It's beginning to look like you only don't like them because they're gay. Which is of no consequence to you whatsoever.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.
Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.
The only non-biased source you cited showed the rates in percentages, which I've already shown to be misleading. If you could show this statistic in actual numbers, citing several independent studies, I would be more inclined to believe you.

Quote:
It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."
Think about this for a second. Who persecutes homosexuals? People like you. You, frankly, are personally responsible for the chemical dependencies of homosexuals, if what you say is true. You continue to believe they're sick and perverted, and you chide them for it, which drives them to chemical dependencies. YOU are the one making them behave this way. You can't blame them for something that people like you caused.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.
I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?
I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.
Now you're just insulting people because you can't defend your irrational hatred and you know it. This would be sad if it weren't funny.

Quote:
I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.
I think you're beginning to slide down a slippery slope, here. What exactly do you think is going to happen if we accept homosexual orientation as a natural part of the scheme of human sexuality? If you think it's going to turn kids gay, think again. Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Let's try an experiment to prove it.

If homosexuality is a choice, you should reasonably be able to will yourself to be attracted to men. You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem. Will yourself gay and then go find some pictures of attractive men and see if you become aroused.

I don't know why I wasted my time writing that, since you won't do it, or you'll at least lie about it.

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your argument right now, but I'm desperately awaiting your response. WILL HE DO IT, FOLKS? WILL HE BE GAY FOR AN HOUR? PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 05:05 PM       

"You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem."

I can do that
According to certain fields of psychology just about everything in the human psyche is malleable, but that's mostly coming from people like John Lily and Timothy Leary. So take it for what you will.
However, something I always found interesting on the subject was their "Reimprinting" ideas. Apparantly they opened a clinic that did stuff like this(it's essentially akin to certain forms of brain washing, i guess) and had a customer who, upon the first time he was having sex, had a police officer knock on the window of his car and scared the shit out of him so he was impotent for umpteen years.
The theory behind that is socio-sexual complexes are generally imprinted on the first sexual experience, but I'm sure they include prior life experience to some degree.
Anyway, once they opened the clinic he came and they apparantly helped, and he was able to get it up again. I'm sure there's a more detailed report out there somewhere.

This guy makes me laugh everytime i think about him, though, he's such a whiner.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 03:27 AM       
Well?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Pharaoh Pharaoh is offline
Member
Pharaoh's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 07:11 AM       
Whether gays are mentally ill or not, I don't think it's good for a child's mental health to have two fathers or two mothers. Being adopted is hard enough to live with without being brought up in such an unnatural family. It makes it quite obvious that the child is adopted and there's no chance for the child to hide the fact if it wants to. It's not fair on the child.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
glowbelly glowbelly is offline
my baby's mama
glowbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cleveland
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 08:25 AM       
my neighbor is divorced. he has two kids. he's gay.

so is his ex-wife.

so who gets the kids NOW, huh?
__________________
porn is just babies as work-in-progress
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Pharaoh Pharaoh is offline
Member
Pharaoh's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 08:37 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowbelly
my neighbor is divorced. he has two kids. he's gay.

so is his ex-wife.

so who gets the kids NOW, huh?
It won't make much difference to them, they're going to be messed up mentally whatever happens. If it's true, that is.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 02:24 PM       
There are no conclusive unbiased studies stating that the child's mental health will be affected if brought up in a homosexual household.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Chojin Chojin is offline
was never good
Chojin's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 1999
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 08:07 PM       
Haven't ANY of you seen 'The Birdcage'.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Old Jan 14th, 2006, 11:57 PM       
I've seen most of it, and from what I saw, that kid was completely straight.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #70  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jan 15th, 2006, 12:01 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
Whether gays are mentally ill or not, I don't think it's good for a child's mental health to have two fathers or two mothers. Being adopted is hard enough to live with without being brought up in such an unnatural family. It makes it quite obvious that the child is adopted and there's no chance for the child to hide the fact if it wants to. It's not fair on the child.
How many kids of gay couples do you know?

I know only 1, so that's a pretty piss poor sampling, but he's as or more well adjusted than a lot of kids of straight couples that I know (so to recap, anecdotally, we're looking at a success rate of 100% for the queers vs like 35% for the breeders - pretty damn grim for my team, IMO ).
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Pharaoh Pharaoh is offline
Member
Pharaoh's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Old Jan 15th, 2006, 07:03 AM       
I don't know any children adopted by a gay couple, it's very rare here at the moment. It could be fifty years before we're able to see the consequences of allowing gay adoption.

If the natural mother of a child is gay and brings up the child with her partner then I don't see any problem with that, at least the child will be able to call one of them mum. Likewise with a gay real dad and his partner. If two gay men adopt a child though, which one would be the dad? There'd have to be dad 1 and dad 2, it's weird and not a natural situation for the child. Nobody naturally has two dads.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Pub Lover Pub Lover is offline
Näyttelijäbotti!
Pub Lover's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mogadishu, Texas
Old Jan 15th, 2006, 07:47 AM       
Nobody can naturally travel to the Moon.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie
No YouTube embeds in your sigs, poindexter.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
sadie sadie is offline
ineffable
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: ineffability
Old Jan 15th, 2006, 11:25 AM       
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Pharaoh Pharaoh is offline
Member
Pharaoh's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Old Jan 15th, 2006, 02:01 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub Lover
Nobody can naturally travel to the Moon.
Yes, which is why astronauts have to be very psychologically robust.
Isolation and withdrawal from social relationships on Earth is very stressful. Being put in a strange, high-pressure environment can result in anxiety and depression in astronauts.

Children, however, aren't specially chosen for their psychological robustness for adoption by gay couples, and many of them won't be able to cope with such an unusual arrangement. They would be far happier with the usual mother and father arrangement. Although some probably will cope, I'll admit that.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Spectre X Spectre X is offline
Rating: Yes.
Spectre X's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dutchland
Old Jan 15th, 2006, 02:48 PM       
Cars aren't natural. Neither are processed meats.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chojin
everybody knows that pterodactyls hate the screech of a guitar :o
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.