It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proud To Be Gay, Ashamed To Be Straight

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Just gave you a source tinkle. Check it out if you want or don't.




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
No, you really didn't. You give a very vague reference, with no supporting evidence. That's not quite the same thing.

But allow me to provide some for you to peruse


APA source, and excerpt:

" In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. "

(emphasis mine)

Perhaps to illustrate further though...NASW statement

"The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association have all issued policies, based on scientific evidence, that conclude that: (1) Lesbian and gay parents are as fit, capable and successful as heterosexual parents; and (2) Children of lesbian and gays fare as well as children of heterosexuals on all measures of emotional health, social and psychological adjustment, and cognitive development."

The American Academy of Pediatrics.
The APA.
The American Psychoanalytic Association.
The National Association Of Social Workers.

These are not agencies known for any particular agenda, either pro- or anti-gay.

Are these professional organisations wrong?

Are they all headed by gays with an agenda?

Or could their information be correct?

Let's draw our own conclusions.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
You are full of crap tinkle, I checked it all out and saw nothing of the sort. Sounds like someone is getting biased information from unreliable sources. The FACT remains homoness is a choice. There is no gene responsible for it, no unseen force, noone but the homosexual himself. If you want to be proud of your homosexuality then whatever, just do it where my children and I don't have to be disgusted by it.

Just a quick question, Have you ever done anything in your life that was your fault, ever done anything wrong and taken full responsibility for it? Ever been let go from a job for something you actually did or didn't do? Ever had a wreck and it was your fault? Ever been pulled over for speeding and you actually were? Ever told a lie and admitted it was a lie?
It is high time people start taking responsibility for their own actions.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
You are full of crap tinkle, I checked it all out and saw nothing of the sort.


Uh - you obviously didn't read the information then.

(Mods, apologies in advance for the pasting - but it looks like I need to actually highlight the relevent bits from the referenced sources)

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association have all issued policies, based on scientific evidence, that conclude that:(1) Lesbian and gay parents are as fit, capable and successful as heterosexual parents; and (2) Children of lesbian and gays fare as well as children of heterosexuals on all measures of emotional health, social and psychological adjustment, and cognitive development.

Once again, this passage is taken from This NASW - that's National Association Of Social Workers link.




Sounds like someone is getting biased information from unreliable sources


You know, there's really not much I can say to that. You just single-handedly ignored a mountain of evidence, from - for the love of chocolate - the American Psychiatric Association (for one), and swept it away because...you think the information is biased and from unreliable sources. Could you please, please, please offer any logical reasons why you're disputing this information? Anything at all? And did you come up with any credible sources whatsoever to prove your allegations relating to gay parenting and molestation?



If you want to be proud of your homosexuality then whatever, just do it where my children and I don't have to be disgusted by it.


I'll remain proud of my heterosexuality, thanks
And I'll make jolly well sure I don't show my pride in front of you, or your children. As long as you promise to keep your prejudice in check too, mkay? Mkay.



Just a quick question, Have you ever done anything in your life that was your fault, ever done anything wrong and taken full responsibility for it? Ever been let go from a job for something you actually did or didn't do? Ever had a wreck and it was your fault? Ever been pulled over for speeding and you actually were? Ever told a lie and admitted it was a lie?
It is high time people start taking responsibility for their own actions.


I'll answer these in turn.

1. Yup. Frequently. I still mess up. And I still take the flack for it. That's called being an adult.
2. I was fired once for something completely, utterly my fault. Does that count?
3. Nope. I was a rather careful driver.
4. Nope. Never got a speeding ticket. Why? I never used to speed.
5. Oh heavens yes. You kind of have to when you have as many siblings as I do.

Now. What was the point of these questions? Were you trying to ascertain whether or not I'd ever taken responsibility for anything? Odd, but ok. Yup, I certainly have! I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove there though.

I'm still sitting here, utterly baffled as to the lack of logic in your response. Help me out here?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I'm sorry that you see no logic in my responses. I feel the same way about yours. It just seems that someone that makes excuses for the wrongs that people do must not take responsibility for anything. Like all of the people that thought Ted Bundy and Jeffry Dahmer were somehow not responsible for their actions and should not have died.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Why are these GAY threads so long?

Are there that many gays out there?

I'm not putting anyone down, it just seems like these threads are always HUGE and/or reactionary. What does that say?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
NBC news reported that approximately 6% of the earths population is gay, yet they speak far far louder than the billions of heterosexuals. Screaming for the world to change.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
The world is only 6% gay? I don't believe that. It has to be more. If it wasn't , for example, how can we account for 10 pages of this gay-related thread?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why are these GAY threads so long?

Are there that many gays out there?

I'm not putting anyone down, it just seems like these threads are always HUGE and/or reactionary. What does that say?


Dunno. I'm not gay. But the issue does polarise people; in part because of religious differences. Let's face it, I'd doubt most people would even care if it weren't for previous religious indoctrination about the whole thing. Despite (frighteningly) popular belief, people aren't born with an inherent knowledge that "gay = wrong".

As for the 6% thing - sorry, I can't take the figure seriously without any backup.

Otherwise we could sit here whilst Boy George tells us 32% of the world is gay, and Tammy Faye tells us it's -12% (everyone is "misguided", not "gay").

Deesw - you keep throwing out these allegations, and yet there's never any proof. Why is that?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Yes, it sounds like some solid sources for percentages are called for.

I'd say at least a quarter of the world's population is gay. That's just based on my 36 years of observation. There are also a lot of gay people in denial and in the closet. some of them are tight-a$$d Republicans... that's why they're so viciously critical of people... it's self-loathing to the extreme.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I read something a while back while doing some research into failability in scientific research. This whole "denial"/"in the closet" phenomenon is really remarkable. You can go to a shrink, and they can decide that you are gay. There is nothing, nothing, that can convince them otherwise. If you say you're not, you're in denial. If you say, "fine, whatever," you're being passive agressive in response to an unwanted truth being presented to you. If you get angry, it's because the shrink hit the nail on the head, and you don't want to face the truth so you lash out.

It really seems this whole "denial" movement is a chance for us to be right in our initial judgement of someone, even if all the evidence after we get to know them points otherwise. I'm guilty of it, and, ECK, no offense, but if you think that a quarter of the world's population is gay, but many if not most are just in the closet, you're guilty of it, too. Hehe to use a circular reasoning, we have fallen back to this assumption of denial and other psychiatric conditions to make ourselves right and keep ourselves in a bit of a state of denial of what the world around us is really like. That it's not black and white, but infinitely complex, we try to hide from ourselves.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Well put Jake, well put.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Yes, it sounds like some solid sources for percentages are called for.

I'd say at least a quarter of the world's population is gay. That's just based on my 36 years of observation. There are also a lot of gay people in denial and in the closet. some of them are tight-a$$d Republicans... that's why they're so viciously critical of people... it's self-loathing to the extreme.


I can picture someone taking the opposite tack, and telling you that a quarter of the world is actually Christian, but is "in denial . . . that's why a lot of "godless leftists" are so in-your-face and vicious about how most of this country is retarded in its politics and religious beliefs . . . it's self loathing in the extreme.




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
No, not this thread, but this and this.

I'd waste a lot of time talking about history, various cultures, when people suddenly started categorizing humans based on sexual orientation, when homosexuality became frowned upon, when it became okay again, when it was bad again, the subsequent struggle, the impact of Christianity, Philosophy, and the creation of a clergy class, the creation of a eunuch class, Karl Rove, how people define themselves differently, how some can engage in homosexual activity all their life but never view themselves as homosexual, cite some Kinsey, debunk some Kinsey, talk about the difference in incidence versus prevalence, talk about the Roman Empire, talk about the Navy, talk about jail populations, talk about surveys in general, talk about sexual guilt, talk about how America's dichotomous black & white thinking doesn't really apply to much of the world, talk about Islam (where it does), talk about Europe (where it does not), talk about China (which has their own rules for the feminine and masculine), talk about Catholicism, talk about bi-sexuality, talk about the heterosexual community's rabid lesbian envy, talk about where "straight" men's eyes really go when watching porn, sports, wrestling, etc... basically talk about a lot of thing if I thought it mattered.

But it won't.

So when it comes to the denial discussion, it's really not whether or not the world is 1% or 37% "gay." It's what percent are you gay.

Some people prefer their role playing in the bedroom, other's just role play in real life.

For the record, I hate sports, much prefer the company of ladies, and interestingly enough I'm not remotely threatened by anyone's sexuality whatsoever except legislative fetishists.

I just think public role playing authoritarians are hilarious. Guess you've got to be the man someplace.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
So when it comes to the denial discussion, it's really not whether or not the world is 1% or 37% "gay." It's what percent are you gay.

Some people prefer their role playing in the bedroom, other's just role play in real life.

For the record, I hate sports, much prefer the company of ladies, and interestingly enough I'm not remotely threatened by anyone's sexuality whatsoever except legislative fetishists.

I just think public role playing authoritarians are hilarious. Guess you've got to be the man someplace.


Well, now we have to discuss what it means to be gay. In my mind, being gay means you're sexually attracted to the same gender. Being a man does not mean you have to be leaking testosterone out of every pore in your body, sprouting hair everywhere and a complete jock. For the record, I'm not a sports guy, either, and do enjoy the company of women as I suspect you do Rant, not in a sexual way but simply as friendly company.

Not being gay does not mean you have to go down to the bar, drinking drinks whose only function is to put hair on your chest while you root for your team. So far as I'm concerned, the only thing that defines someone as "gay" is their sexual preference. There is no single behavior that all homosexuals display just as there is no single behavior that all heterosexuals display.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I think that "orientation" is fruitles speculation. I define "gay" and straight as sexual acts.

Orientation is a joke. Personally, I'm obese. But I don't mean to be. I'm THIN by orientation. It is just that my environment has forced me into an obese role. Yes! that's it, I'm really a thin man, trapped inside a fat person!

Fantasy is just that. It doesn't mean anything. If I tell you that I have fantasies about commiting acts of piracy, does that frighten you? Does it make me a pirate?

Now, personally, I'm a Christian. And after a lot of study, I cannot find anywhere in scripture that being tempted is a sin. The sin comes by our response to sin. So, if I think to myself that I'd love to pull out a pistol and sieze my nieghbor's bassboat and set fire to the dock, and sail away under a black flag, that isn't a sin unless I start to get all wrapped up in it.

Talking about orientation reminds me of dealing with guys in the jail: "I may have held up a liquor store, BUT I'M NO CRIMINAL for goddsakes!" Then I would ask them how they define a criminal? It isn't about orientation--it's about overt acts. And it follows, that if you are a criminal, and you want to change your orientation, how do you do that? Well, step one might be to QUIT ROBBING LIQUOR STORES!

Noticing that a person of the opposite and/or desired sex is attractive is not a sin. Making plans about it, fantasizing repeatedly, is.

So, from this principle, I have decided that orientation is a pointless discussion.

And how do you change your orientation? You cannot. But every adult CAN change their behavior if they choose to. Paul never once condemns Temptation. As a matter of fact, he repeatedly notes that all of us are continually tempted. Paul focuses on acts, instead of on temptation.


Obvioiusly, people who don't share my belief system will never feel any need to change. And that's another topic entirely.

But I think my line of reasoning may seem reasonable to people of other faiths or no faith at all. Since none of us are psychic, we are not really in a position to pass judgement on their interior lives. And indeed, affect and mood may be largely genetic. Still, we hold adults responsible for their overt acts.

I think the concept of "orientation" was created by the "everyone must be gay crowd" to include as many people in the rainbow-striped tent as possible.




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Orientation is a joke. Personally, I'm obese. But I don't mean to be. I'm THIN by orientation. It is just that my environment has forced me into an obese role. Yes! that's it, I'm really a thin man, trapped inside a fat person!


Ah. That's not a good analogy. You're implying that everyone makes a choice to be fat or thin - and that's just not accurate (sadly).

Some people will never be naturally thin. Others could never manage being more than 10 lbs overweight if their life depended on it. For these people, their weight has nothing to do with environment; their natural physiology and genetic heritage has contributed to their natural orientation, if you want to put it in those terms...which, if we're staying with your analogy, actually supports the concept of not being able to choose sexual orientation.

If it were really true that "everyone" was automatically "thin" (or indeed, fat) by default, I could see what you're saying.

But...they're not.

Unless I missed your point?

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Orientation is a joke. Personally, I'm obese. But I don't mean to be. I'm THIN by orientation. It is just that my environment has forced me into an obese role. Yes! that's it, I'm really a thin man, trapped inside a fat person!


Ah. That's not a good analogy. You're implying that everyone makes a choice to be fat or thin - and that's just not accurate (sadly).

Some people will never be naturally thin. Others could never manage being more than 10 lbs overweight if their life depended on it. For these people, their weight has nothing to do with environment; their natural physiology and genetic heritage has contributed to their natural orientation, if you want to put it in those terms...which, if we're staying with your analogy, actually supports the concept of not being able to choose sexual orientation.

If it were really true that "everyone" was automatically "thin" (or indeed, fat) by default, I could see what you're saying.

But...they're not.

Unless I missed your point?

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]


Well, I DO like that example, for a couple of reasons. And yes, obesity does run in my family.

Even so. I have SOME responsibility for my obesity. After all, I held every forkfull of food as it went into my body. It's not like I was force-fed.

My point was, there is no way for another person to guage your "orientation." You may not be able to change your feelings; yet you ARE responsible for your own acts.

My genetic ancestors are not responsible for my weight.

I am.

If I am intimate with a woman (and I am), it is because I choose to be. Not merely a biological urge, but a choice I am responsible for.

My point is, that there is within the gay community an argument that even people who feel that homosexuality is morally wrong should overlook their own belief-systems, because, "we can't help it."

My point is, adults are responsible for their acts. Saying that I was following my orientation is simply the same as saying, "I chose to do this."

Whether that means sleeping with someone, or having a second bowl of ice cream, I am the one who is responsible, right or wrong.



pass the butterscotch, please.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I think I was talking more about people who for whatever reason simply cannot gain or lose weight without extreme outside intervention. These are the folk for whom it's not as simple as just having the willpower to put down the donuts.

I understand the point you're making, truly.

I'm just not sure it applies here; simply because there's a vast difference between (to stay with your analogy) a familial tendency to gain weight (which again can be fought - this is another reason I thought the analogy was flawed in this context, yanno?), and a medical condition over which you have no control, which completely overrides your desire to lose or gain weight - you cannot lose weight whether or not you want to, and whether or not you're trying to. It just cannot happen without extreme intervention.

If anything, staying with your analogy seems to support the notion of an inherent orientation, you know?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I'm guessing the weight issue is something you or someone you love is dealing with, TinkleFlower. I can understand how the situation that's in your mind when reading Dr. Strangecraft's analogy wouldn't apply. His analogy, however, is to be applied to the general circumstances. Any analogy, if over analyzed, does not work. You are comparing similar qualities in apples and oranges, not saying an apple is an orange.




top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join