Homosexuals: Some things I'm noticing about you

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by petrus4

 

There's already a thread on it, and gay people don't want to take heterosexual people's children.

I know there's already a thread on it. The reaction to it, in said thread, was part of my point.

Who is going to look after those children?

I don't have a problem with gay people getting custody of kids.

What I'm having a problem with, is the reaction I'm seeing from gay people on this forum, to research which implies conclusions that they don't like.

Again, that doesn't mean I agree with said research. The point is freedom of expression. As in, some of the gay people I've seen on this forum, have responded to said research with mockery of it, instead of attempting to refute it rationally. Aside from the fact that this portrays the people engaging in said mockery as fascist, it also implies that they aren't actually able to rationally refute what is being presented, and that they are simply resorting to mockery of it, because that is their only alternative. In other words, they're giving the gay cause bad PR.

They attack gay couples with children.

We need to learn to ignore Christians. All of us do. I'm not criticising you here, because it's a problem I have as well. They've told me that I'm evil and that I'm going to hell before, and it hurts.

The problem is, that they're hurting us more than they need to, because we're letting them. It's difficult, but I'm trying to get to the point myself, where I simply view Christians as being mentally ill. So if they tell me I'm going to hell, or if they attack gay couples with children, we simply need to focus on that, and realise that their behaviour isn't about us. It's simply an external projection of their own issues, and mind control.

reply to post by petrus4

OK, I can agree with that, so it appears we don't have an issue.

I'd like to know more about those "fascist gays" though, so if you see something that upsets you that way (preferably something particular, and not a whole 4 page thread) I'd be quite interested to see it.
I'm just really trying to form a picture of what's going on in the US, and whether there really are these "fascist gays" or whether it's misunderstandings and hysteria.

Thanks for the reply.

reply to post by petrus4


The studies you speak of are not what you seem to imply, at least I can't find any with your conclusion.
Sort of seems like you read a summary conclusion and not the study itself.


Example In the study talked about here-they are not talking about same sex parents. They are talking about parents where one of them was gay. In otherwords-a broken home. Not virtue of same sex parents, but where one of them was gay and raised them alone.
One particle about it as a sample:

Overall, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mom and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.

In otherwords, the study was bad. It contrasted single gay parents against a stable married couple. News flash: Children of a whole (presumably healthy) family always do better than a single parent, gay or straight.

You cite that people ignore studies if they do not back up their claim. I am curious about your reactions to the following:

From wikipedia

Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”.[24] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[27] the National Association of Social Workers,[28] the Child Welfare League of America,[29] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[30] and Canadian Psychological Association.[31] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."[7]

If you look at the references, you will find around 50 studies that run counter point to the conclusion you have offered, From reputable sources instead of one guy with a 40 question survey comparing apples and oranges.

As for the "Victim" card.

You have asserted this images of gays being wailing babies throwing themselves on rocks to make themselves bloody and then crying that others have done it.

You view is at best asinine. Not only do you only chose to back it up with inflated anecdotes, but you willfully chose to ignore the factors in our society. You seem to project that everything is deserved or made up, very similar to a Rape Apologist saying the woman deserved it because she didn't dress in a burkha.

Fact is the American society is one that the majority view it as acceptable to physically attack gays, though most would not do it themselves, there is a common response "They deserved it.". It is a society that on any given day you can turn on the television and see strangers saying things like "They are unnatural" or more slanderous items and almost never be challenged on it. Where the majority of churches insist on "Abominations" and where strangers gather to vote rights away.

I am one of those who is tired of suffering fools with their White Christian Hetero Privilege. Demanding that they are in fact the true victims on items simply because people disagree or demand that they no longer be treated as second class citizens.

You are entitled you your free speech and opinions. As I am entitled to destroy everything you say with facts and rationality.

I am tired of hearing stories of people killing themselves before they even hit the age of 20 because of the drivel people like you espouse. Make no mistake. Crap like this thread directly adds to the never ending stream of people saying "You are not worth anything" that happens in this country.

So, I invite you, setup the debate. I promise you, I will act in honor and integrity in said debate. But-make no mistake. I will destroy you.

reply to post by petrus4


I hope you understand that the "emotional dial" that you speak of is at the default setting of zero with me. But I ask this, what about those heterosexuals on ATS that also use hate speech and other emotional assaults to get their way? I recall in threads some people, some not all, throwing out random phrases and saying that a person is inferring it in a feeble attempt to destroy the argument.

Also, since when do gays try to be liked by everyone? The gays I know don't try to be everyone's friends, they just are there. Your arguments can also be taken as one-sided because you rant, yes rant, not argue state or any other synonym for a predicate that means to state information in order to begin a conversation, about how only the gays are at fault? Again, racial minorities, religious minorities, complaining majorities, and other groups also have problems where they cannot accept they are disliked by society. I see no signiifcance in your argument, except as a rant in which now when someone who is homosexual, like myself, or argues against your point of view, you will excessively insult them and attempt to use them as evidence to your vague and condescending original post. I await when someone puts you in your place metaphorically after removing the lens that is giving you a single view.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by petrus4

 

I am one of those who is tired of suffering fools with their White Christian Hetero Privilege.

I can relate to that myself, more than you know.

As I am entitled to destroy everything you say with facts and rationality.

If you are willing and able to do that, then I entirely welcome it. My primary objection was that I felt that the gay responses I was seeing on this forum, lacked rationality. I've had a couple of excellent responses to this thread. If the price of obtaining some genuinely worthwhile discussion from you, was writing something which you initially considered provocative, then I consider such well worth it.

I am tired of hearing stories of people killing themselves before they even hit the age of 20 because of the drivel people like you espouse. Make no mistake. Crap like this thread directly adds to the never ending stream of people saying "You are not worth anything" that happens in this country.

If my intent was to claim that I consider homosexual individuals to have no worth, then I would have said so directly. I have not, because it was not. Part of the reason why I found the behaviour that I earlier described to be antagonistic, was because I considered it self-defeating, on the part of the individuals who engaged in it.

I've read homosexual advocates who claim to want the complete social and legal normalisation of their orientation. I have no objection whatsoever to that goal. What I can at times find paradoxical, however, is that at the same time that normalisation is the stated objective, some (although certainly by no means all) gays also seem to go out of their way to draw attention to themselves.

I consider the pride rallies etc, as another example, to be ultimately self-defeating for the movement and its' cause. The simple reason why, is because heterosexuals do not march semi-naked down city streets, proclaiming that they are straight. Part of the definition of something being normal, is also that it is entirely silent and implicit. You don't see it, and it is entirely taken for granted. One of the other responders to this thread, emphasised his own normalcy in near every other respect of his life. He seemed to be one of the ordinarily silent majority; and I think that is the situation which should be aimed for.

A lesbian cousin of mine came to the house to visit us with her partner a few days ago. That came across as an entirely normal event; they both sat there, and there was no mention made of her sexuality whatsoever. If my mother had not previously told me of her coming out, I wouldn't have known. Hence, no problem whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuality become lower profile from the point of view of sweeping it under the rug; I'm suggesting it from the point of view that I think to a certain extent, it will actually help homosexuality to become more effectively accepted, if it simply becomes as implicit as heterosexuality. My intent in this thread was not to object to homosexuality in and of itself, at all; but to object to some of the political behaviour that I'd seen engaged in by self-identifying homosexual people, in response to certain material dealing with it, on this forum.

reply to post by petrus4


In other words, and I apologize for misunderstanding your supposed clearly stated viewpoints, but as long as homosexuals hide who they are then there is not a problem? Even though according to you your friends were able to be together at your house, they could be affectionate? Some people prefer relationships like that, but what if that friend of yours suddenly started resting on her partner's head? Would you have criticized her or let her be?

I really want to see that formal debate with Petrues.

I really want to see if Petreus can do something other than bash and generalize about people he can't understand.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Shall I make the popcorn to see what will never happen? Oh I'm sorry, that was very rude, please allow me to rephrase.

Shall I make popcorn to see petreus attempt to no generalize, not use insult, and actually argue?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I really want to see that formal debate with Petrues.

I really want to see if Petreus can do something other than bash and generalize about people he can't understand.

In case you're wondering why I generally don't bother replying to you, ESC, this is a good example. You've got a vendetta. You come into pretty much every thread I make with the same message; calling me a troll and telling me to shut up.

Some people prefer relationships like that, but what if that friend of yours suddenly started resting on her partner's head? Would you have criticized her or let her be?

I think a big part of the problem here, is the fact that people on this forum don't know me, and because of that, they apparently anticipate that my behaviour is going to be like that of various other people they've had to deal with.

To answer your question though, no; I wouldn't have been bothered by them being affectionate.

Originally posted by locololo
reply to post by petrus4

 

I see no signiifcance in your argument, except as a rant in which now when someone who is homosexual, like myself, or argues against your point of view, you will excessively insult them and attempt to use them as evidence to your vague and condescending original post. I await when someone puts you in your place metaphorically after removing the lens that is giving you a single view.

"I don't like what you're saying. Shut up."

Seriously; was there any point in expending the necessary energy to type the above? You could have used my summary; much easier.

reply to post by petrus4


Yes, because if I stated what you summarised, you would immediatly attempt to use me as evidence to your claim of how homosexuals do not produce rational arguments.

Originally posted by locololo
reply to post by petrus4

 

Yes, because if I stated what you summarised, you would immediatly attempt to use me as evidence to your claim of how homosexuals do not produce rational arguments.

I was actually seeking proof that that wasn't true of all of you; which some of you have now provided me. You've proven my original assertion, however, fairly effectively; part of which was the claim that gay posters here have simply tried to tell anyone who has expressed an opinion which they don't like, to shut up.

reply to post by petrus4



Because all you really do is bash people because you can't understand them. plus I've seen your criticism of atheists and homosexuals before on other forums, so you'll forgive me if i'm a little bit frustrated with people like you continually bashing entire groups of people. You came out swinging first. I'm not the only one who has seen this.

Prove me wrong if you will, but the only way to do that is to have a formal debate.

So I dare you to prove me wrong, and if you do, I will give you fifty stars.

Edit:
I've seen other people use the same kinds of critiques, that is.

If you don't want people to tell you to shut up, stop bashing them and actually contribute actual debate.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by petrus4

 

If you don't want people to tell you to shut up, stop bashing them and actually contribute actual debate.

What does "actual debate," mean? Some examples might help.

reply to post by petrus4


Some of you provides evidence for a group? How about instead of your ad hominem of gays of ats, why not just say, Locololo one of few gays of ats? Make you look like less of a douche as opposed to how now.

reply to post by petrus4


First, you come up with a premise.

Second, you back up your premise with actual facts with links to the sources of your claims, and avoid disreputable sources such as Inforwars or WND.

Secondly, avoid logical fallacies and generalizations.

Know your material. If you're going to criticize an author, read his books and know what he or she writes. Don't take quotes out of context.

Here's an example of logical fallacies to avoid:

tvtropes.org...

Here's a forum I lurk at that also has great advice on formal debates:

www.rationalskepticism.org...

Originally posted by locololo
reply to post by petrus4

 

Some of you provides evidence for a group? How about instead of your ad hominem of gays of ats, why not just say, Locololo one of few gays of ats? Make you look like less of a douche as opposed to how now.

I look like that in your eyes. The OP, however, actually got applause from a member of the staff.

One person's trash is another's treasure; so I'm really not too worried about your individual opinion, at all.

reply to post by petrus4


Snipping out sections to conserve space.

If you are willing and able to do that, then I entirely welcome it. My primary objection was that I felt that the gay responses I was seeing on this forum, lacked rationality. I've had a couple of excellent responses to this thread. If the price of obtaining some genuinely worthwhile discussion from you, was writing something which you initially considered provocative, then I consider such well worth it.

You state that you object to negative reactions and yet your original post contains many stereotypes and what could be termed as "Trigger" words. You started by saying nobody is rational then cite nothing to back it up. Then make assertions of being "Marxist" and "Authoritarian". Claim that everyone plays a victim card and indeed full discrimination.

This is all only in the first three paragraphs. Nowhere do you provide anything that constitutes evidence. It simply comes off as fight picking.

If my intent was to claim that I consider homosexual individuals to have no worth, then I would have said so directly. I have not, because it was not. Part of the reason why I found the behaviour that I earlier described to be antagonistic, was because I considered it self-defeating, on the part of the individuals who engaged in it.

Ah, so you arent saying worthless, you are saying "Whiney crybaby nazi commies without the emotional stability to make adult stances on their own rights and should just shut up"? I am not sure that is a better distinction.

I've read homosexual advocates who claim to want the complete social and legal normalisation of their orientation. I have no objection whatsoever to that goal. What I can at times find paradoxical, however, is that at the same time that normalisation is the stated objective, some (although certainly by no means all) gays also seem to go out of their way to draw attention to themselves.

I consider the pride rallies etc, as another example, to be ultimately self-defeating for the movement and its' cause. The simple reason why, is because heterosexuals do not march semi-naked down city streets, proclaiming that they are straight. Part of the definition of something being normal, is also that it is entirely silent and implicit. You don't see it, and it is entirely taken for granted. One of the other responders to this thread, emphasised his own normalcy in near every other respect of his life. He seemed to be one of the ordinarily silent majority; and I think that is the situation which should be aimed for.

The purpose of pride rallies and parades is simple: Show people in the closet, in unhealthy relationships where they are pretending they are interesting in some poor schmuck who is along for the ride. Or others too terrified of being rejected by family, friends and society at large. To show them there are more people out there. The louder they are and the less fear they show-the more confidence it builds within the closet (This is personal observation). It is also has the tremendous benefit of desensitizing people who would otherwise freak out if they saw two guys even sitting near each other at a restaurant or who might be sneakily holding hands under the armrest at a movie theater. Years ago it would have almost guaranteed an attack, either physical or verbal. Now in many cities people barely give the stink eye.
What you really seem to be saying there is you dislike them and are rationalizing why you are correct in doing so.

A lesbian cousin of mine came to the house to visit us with her partner a few days ago. That came across as an entirely normal event; they both sat there, and there was no mention made of her sexuality whatsoever. If my mother had not previously told me of her coming out, I wouldn't have known. Hence, no problem whatsoever.

And that is EXACTLY the normalcy that every gay person wants.

Due to limitations-next paragraph will be replied in the next post.

reply to post by petrus4


Well congratulations are in order. You were able to appease a member of the staff. You should feel very proud for that, not including that fact that many threads that look at opposite viewpoints of yours also get said applause.