<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexual orientation is of course, purely psychological. Your hormones may be raging but what they are raging at or for is dependant upon the human in question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's BS. Even your anti-homosexual source states that there is a substantial genetic component to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not purely psychological OR purely biological. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you're confusing natural, healthy same-sex attraction with unnatural homosexual attraction. Of course we all crave attention from our same sex but it doesn't mean it's sexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The bisexual people in this thread don't seem to be confusing platonic and sexual attraction.
Let's as a reputable source about homosexuality, like the American Psychological Association: <a href='http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html' target='_blank'>http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?</i>
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; <b>most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.</b> In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?</i>
<b>No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight.</b> Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?</i>
<b>No.</b> Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. <b>The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.</b>
However, not all ****, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. ****, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?</i>
<b>Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented.</b> For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the fact is, homosexuality is unnatural.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where did you get this opinion? This is most definately not a fact.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 3 2005, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 3 2005, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But the fact is, homosexuality is unnatural.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats not what<a href='http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.****.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml' target='_blank'>this</a> seems to indicate.
Nor <a href='http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0226/iacentos2.shtml' target='_blank'>this</a>....
Nor <a href='http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html' target='_blank'>this</a>.....
Nor <a href='http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/zoology.html' target='_blank'>this</a> one (yes its from a **** and lesbian rgiths site, but they seem to cite their sources well enough)....
Ok hold on right there, before I go any further let me tell you two things come to mind which are like 99% of the time what the situation actually is. When I hear somebody call themselves bisexual that to me that means one of two things:
1. <u><b>Sexuality transition</b></u> - heterosexual going homosexual or visa versa.
2. <u><b>Sexuality confusion</b></u> - there has been some sort of sexual abuse done to you and this is part of an effect of the sexual trauma
<i>So before I can really help you or answer your quandaries I must have to level with me, with us. Which is it?</i>
It's ok if you are homosexual just as much as if you are heterosexual. I have some very cool friends of mine which are ****. I'm personally 100% (or damn close to it anyways) heterosexual, but I'm also completely accepting of people who are different from me. To me, I don't value your character as a person or judge you differently because of your sexual preferences. I relish diversity. If somebody ever wonders if I might be interested in a homosexual relationship, my common response is just so say truthfully and flatly "sorry dude I just don't swing that way. *shrug*." Probably followed up by "Hey do you know any nice chicks?" since **** guys are usually friends with lots of women, seriously it's quite uncanny. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(and there's a good reason for that btw)
Although I must warn you, the NSF Discussion Forum is probably one of the <i>worst</i> places I can think of to find people who will be ok with you being homosexual and give you good advice on your question. (there are some extremist religious right regulars on this particular forum, no personal offense intended to these people). So I'm not going to be surprised if I see offensive and cruel remarks from these people as they will view your homosexual side as sinful and wrong. You're going to have to listen to yourself on this one. If you haven't been sexually abused then seriously you should admit to yourself how you really feel. It is very common to find *** in American society who because of the social environment, feel pressured to believe that they are in the wrong and are thus stuck halfway between homosexual and heterosexual. (as society pushes them hetero and they are being pulled towards homosexual) You'd be shocked how often this is the case; I'm really not kidding when I say it is almost always one of those two reasons above. Of course there could always be exceptions but I'm very much in doubt.
~off topic~
On a side note I would like to motion that **** porn and straight porn get separated in adult stores. I think Adam from Love Line put it best (not an exact quote): <!--QuoteBegin-Adam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Adam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nothing is worse for straight guys than **** porn. You're walking in the adult store and of course you have to be looking only a few in front of you like you got blinders on because you never want to run into somebody you know and make eye contact. It just makes for a very awkward situation. But so your looking around right and you go though the different fetishes and keep on walking only looking at a few titles at a time and then you see a picture and you're thinking like "hey those guys are really giving it to that chick who has a mustache—aaaah! Oh god! Oh my god! That image is now burned into my brain! no!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well personally I've never been a big fan of porn (perhaps because of the schools I went to growing up, who knows who cares) and I've never been in an adult bookstore to be honest but I think he makes a good point. You're browsing some porn thing online or click on a link which took you to one and you see "hot anal action" or "three guys" and it just repulsive for people who aren't into that.
~back on topic~
I think a good point was made about nobody being perfectly 100% hetero or homosexual. True, but why does that matter? I mean consider writing with a pen, it isn't 100% safe but it's damn insignificant the odds that it won't be safe. (well I guess that pen in <i>007: Golden Eye</i> wasn't safe but I'm now just confusing my point) So am I 100% (or is anybody for that matter), no; but am I more that 99%, yeah. So it doesn't really make a difference.
On a side note, at an all Male Catholic Highschool the **** question has to be dealt with more than the rest of society. It is a common freshman thing with the typical male fighting with the other males to establish hierarchy to use "Are you ****?" and "fagget / ***" as insults regardless of whether or not the person in question is or isn't (I think we had like what, 3 people out of more than 1500 who were actually ****). Perhaps straight guys who are already intolerant of others hate *** as a way of feeling better about themselves, bully the weaker. Whatever the stupid and inexcusable reason, it begins to become old and teamwork and class unity becomes the focus. By the time you are a senior you have become to hate the childish attitude and intolerance. Typically seeing some little punk trying to bully somebody different from him calling him a *** and stuff tends to make senior want to come over their and drop kick your little punk arse. Unfortunately I don't think any of you people who didn't go through that change or evolution are at that level. Many of you have not had to improve as a person in that fashion and can still carry that immature freshman like blind hatred for those who are different than you. And for people like me that is far more revolting that guy on guy action could ever be. Such intolerance is immature and inexcusable.
But first tings first, Mr. Euoplocephalus I need you to answer my "which is it?" question honestly with me. I am always open to exceptions, in nature there always are exceptions, but it'd be rare. And as far as "aren't we all a little bent?" well yes as a matter of fact we all are but there comes a point with some people like myself where the degree of that is so insignificant that it really does not matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-the x5+May 3 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the x5 @ May 3 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But first tings first, Mr. Euoplocephalus I need you to answer my "which is it?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly? Niether.
I've never been abused, in anyway.
I'm also sure I'm not in "transition" as you call it. I've came to grips with the idea of being bi about..oh 7 or 8 years ago, and have not had any reason to question it since. I've been deeply attracted to both guys and girls, on both an emotional and sexual level, through out this period.
I've also never felt that I was in transition in this regard at any point in my life. As long as I can remember being attracted to girls, I can remember being attracted to guys. Took a while to sort those feelings out of course, but its definatly not that I suddenly said to myself during my sophmore year of high school that, "hey, I've never noticed this but that guy over there is hot...but since i still find that chick hot, I must be bi"
Thats me anyways. It closely reflects what a female friend of mine who is also openly more or less 50-50 bi, has told me in converstations about her sexuality.
And as this being a bad place to find acceptance, I'm past that. I've found acceptance enough in my friends, and most of my family, as well as, perhaps most importantly, myself. Beyond that, I'm used to offensive and cruel remarks. I'm going to college in a fairly conservative Montana town. One of my roomates literaly has not talked to me since he foudn out I was bi, which in someways is worse than if he had made remarks. At least then i could try and talk to him about it. As is stands I've just gald I'm moving out this Friday. I wish that people weren't like that but they are, and there always will be somebody that will be like that. On the bright side, so far most of the responsed to this thread have been if not supportive of my idea, at least accepting of my stance to some degree, which was honestly a plesant suprise, and I think that as a society we are getting more liberal. Just as racsim continues to haunt our nation, so will homophobia for years to come. But I suspect that within my life time things will have gotten better, just as the problem with racism has greatly improved in the last 50 years.
Edit: prehaps your opinion comes from the fact that people tend to eventualy enter long term, hopefuly perminate relationships at some point during their life with one other person. If I happen to enter one of these with a guy it doesn't mean I'm ****, it just means I'm bi, but in a commited relationship with a guy. Same if it happens with a girl.
<!--QuoteBegin-Euoplocephalus+May 3 2005, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Euoplocephalus @ May 3 2005, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-the x5+May 3 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the x5 @ May 3 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But first tings first, Mr. Euoplocephalus I need you to answer my "which is it?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly? Niether.
I've never been abused, in anyway.
I'm also sure I'm not in "transition" as you call it. I've came to grips with the idea of being bi about..oh 7 or 8 years ago, and have not had any reason to question it since. I've been deeply attracted to both guys and girls, on both an emotional and sexual level, through out this period.
I've also never felt that I was in transition in this regard at any point in my life. As long as I can remember being attracted to girls, I can remember being attracted to guys. Took a while to sort those feelings out of course, but its definatly not that I suddenly said to myself during my sophmore year of high school that, "hey, I've never noticed this but that guy over there is hot...but since i still find that chick hot, I must be bi"
Thats me anyways. It closely reflects what a female friend of mine who is also openly more or less 50-50 bi, has told me in converstations about her sexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It would seem you and your female friend are exceptions then. You're exceptional! Heh. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as this being a bad place to find acceptance, I'm past that. I've found acceptance enough in my friends, and most of my family, as well as, perhaps most importantly, myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Standing ovation* Good for you! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Beyond that, I'm used to offensive and cruel remarks. I'm going to college in a fairly conservative Montana town.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> /me groans
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of my roomates literaly has not talked to me since he found out I was bi, which in someways is worse than if he had made remarks. At least then i could try and talk to him about it. As is stands I've just gald I'm moving out this Friday. I wish that people weren't like that but they are, and there always will be somebody that will be like that. On the bright side, so far most of the responsed to this thread have been if not supportive of my idea, at least accepting of my stance to some degree, which was honestly a plesant suprise, and I think that as a society we are getting more liberal. Just as racsim continues to haunt our nation, so will homophobia for years to come. But I suspect that within my life time things will have gotten better, just as the problem with racism has greatly improved in the last 50 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And hopefully it will continue to improve. *knocks on nearest wooden object, well sorta... but plywood counts I think*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: prehaps your opinion comes from the fact that people tend to eventualy enter long term, hopefuly perminate relationships at some point during their life with one other person. If I happen to enter one of these with a guy it doesn't mean I'm ****, it just means I'm bi, but in a commited relationship with a guy. Same if it happens with a girl.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting. That got me thinking there was a really wonderful show on TLC I caught a bit of earlier when I went to visit my mom. Anyways it was that show <a href='http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/babystory/babystory.html' target='_blank'>A Baby Story</a> and usually I'm just kinda like nah the one one today was about this homosexual couple who had a sister-in-law who was a surrogate mother for a baby for the two guys. Personally I would have suggested adoption (as I did for a **** friend of mine who was interested in raising a child with his partner) but the thought was really cool and reminded me that hey isn't that what it's all about. A loving relationship. Family. Happiness. I mean who care if you are guy and she is a cyborg chick, I mean if you're in love your in love. Sure it's nonstandard and not normal but what the hell is "normal" anyways, such a subjective term. Besides normal and perfect uniformity is boring.
Robotish voice: "I r clone #643. I r like girl #245 because of otpimal enhancement to my genetic code. I r go to college at 18 years, 3 months, 8 hours, 21 minutes, and 43.6231 seconds. I r follow all laws established by normality law and will not enjoy or do anything that does not conform to accepted law of normality. I r no think for myself because of article 3.41a established by Leviticus 20:13"
No freedom is better thank you very much. I'm happy for you Euoplocephalus.
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
I'd have to agree that everyone can at least spot the attractive people of their same gender.
But to say that noticing someone is attractive also makes the noticer "a bit bi" is the same as saying that getting angry at someone makes me "a bit of a murderer".
So, if you personally can see the relation between those two statements, then you're right I guess.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's BS. Even your anti-homosexual source states that there is a substantial genetic component to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not purely psychological OR purely biological.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Homosexuality is the body saying, "I am horny." and the mind saying, "I am most horny for THIS."
From the page I posted earlier...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The scientific truth is - our genes don't force us into anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological sex drive will always need the psychological aspect in order to determine where to aim this onslaught of hormones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bisexual people in this thread don't seem to be confusing platonic and sexual attraction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do by saying, "We're all a little bisexual."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's as a reputable source about homosexuality, like the American Psychological Association:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to politely discredit your source - it has been known for many years that homosexual activists worked day and night to have the APA's take on homosexuality reversed. The APA chose to cave and go with the "politically correct" finding; which is that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.
However, let's work with your material here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most certainly is a choice; and it has been proved by these twin studies. I am sorry to say that your APA's findings. (Made some 32 years ago) have been proven wrong by modern science. I would recommend they re-evaluate their stance on homosexuality.
1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.
2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.
3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
5. Change is possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That last point is what really discredits homosexuality as anything other than a choice. If someone is ADD, they can't turn it off. They can't focus. Many times children are diagnosed with ADD only to find out later that these children CAN focus if they apply themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where did you get this opinion? This is most definately not a fact. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality seems very unnatural to me, just listen to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Among white rats, which are very sexual animals, Steinach found that, when deprived of females, the males practise homosexuality, though only with males with whom they have long associated; the weaker rats play the passive part. But when a female is introduced they immediately turn to her; although they are occasionally altogether indifferent to sex, they never actually prefer their own sex.[6]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats not whatthis seems to indicate.
Nor this....
Nor this.....
Nor this one (yes its from a **** and lesbian rgiths site, but they seem to cite their sources well enough)....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. That first link doesn't work.
2. That penguin study seems to overlook the fact that animals deny certain female partners for whatever reason (it is a scientific phenomenon; beyond explanation, yet.). It is also humorous that you base your argument that homosexuality is "natural" on 10 penguins.
Well, if 10 penguins are doing it, it must be natural.
3. Again, animals deny sexual partners for unknown reasons. This study, as with the last was conducted in zoos. These animals are not in there natural habitat, so why would you expect them to act natural?
4. It's a pretty biased site but I'll take it on.
This one basically just reviews all the other links you posted. Some of these studies were conducted in zoos, etc. etc.
It appears to me as though homosexual activists jump every time a male dog humps another male dog. It isn't natural.
Need more reasons?
How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman.
Also, life is not being created. Pro-creation may not be the only reason for sex but it is a natural course on which sex takes. Homosexuals can't re-produce and that makes it very unnatural indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin-T h e m+May 3 2005, 10:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (T h e m @ May 3 2005, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd have to agree that everyone can at least spot the attractive people of their same gender.
But to say that noticing someone is attractive also makes the noticer "a bit bi" is the same as saying that getting angry at someone makes me "a bit of a murderer".
So, if you personally can see the relation between those two statements, then you're right I guess. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Matthew 5: 21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 3 2005, 10:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 3 2005, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that isn't true. Not all men fit in all women. Just because you "think" they go together doesn't mean that it actually works that way. Men can be too small or to big depending upon the woman's size.
Boonabos are another species of animal that uses homosexuality very commonly, just for what appears the to the pure enjoyment of it. (I'm sure apos or ageri will correct me on how to spell it right.)
Also, do not quote the bible in a thread that has NOTHING to do with it. In fact since some of you like the bible so much.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I shall now explain to you fully this phenomenal knowledge along with its realization; which by knowing nothing further remains to be known in this world.
Out of the thousands of men hardly one endeavors for the perfection of self-realization, and of those so endeavoring hardly has one acheived perfection of self-realization and of those hardly know Me in truth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 3 2005, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 3 2005, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 3 2005, 10:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 3 2005, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that isn't true. Not all men fit in all women. Just because you "think" they go together doesn't mean that it actually works that way. Men can be too small or to big depending upon the woman's size. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As un-pc as it sounds. This line of argumentation needs to bring ethnic matching into consideration.
And secondly, I think DarkATi's argument was based on averages in a group. Statistical anomolies (such as a cow with 2 heads) have no place in a statistically based argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 3 2005, 11:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 3 2005, 11:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 3 2005, 10:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 3 2005, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that isn't true. Not all men fit in all women. Just because you "think" they go together doesn't mean that it actually works that way. Men can be too small or to big depending upon the woman's size.
Boonabos are another species of animal that uses homosexuality very commonly, just for what appears the to the pure enjoyment of it. (I'm sure apos or ageri will correct me on how to spell it right.)
Also, do not quote the bible in a thread that has NOTHING to do with it. In fact since some of you like the bible so much.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I shall now explain to you fully this phenomenal knowledge along with its realization; which by knowing nothing further remains to be known in this world.
Out of the thousands of men hardly one endeavors for the perfection of self-realization, and of those so endeavoring hardly has one acheived perfection of self-realization and of those hardly know Me in truth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am talking more in general. In general, the man fits the woman, by design.
Also, I agree, leave the Bible out of something like this unless there is good reason to introduce it.
Well, my quote just happened to be on precisely the same topic as the quote I was replying to. Cyndande's doesn't seem to be relevant to anything in this thread, other than to say, "If you can quote a religious work, I can too!!!1!one!"
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 3 2005, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 3 2005, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How about - the parts don't fit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actualy....if your doing it right they can fit pretty damn good <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That last point is what really discredits homosexuality as anything other than a choice. If someone is ADD, they can't turn it off. They can't focus. Many times children are diagnosed with ADD only to find out later that these children CAN focus if they apply themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very flawed reasoning. ADD is one of the most over diagnosed disorders in the US. I thought that everybody had seen some news article on that. Honestly. In case you missed it, heres the first synopisis of the problem that came up on google: <a href='http://www.sacramentolda.org/observer/obs02/news.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>. Its a bit old, but yeah...it points out the problem with this example. Futhemore it simply does not follow that because one mental disorder can be changed that all others can be as well.
And then theres the always the fact that bisexuality is not, in my opinion a mental disorder in anyway. You seemd pretty conviced of it, and of a massive cop-out for political reasons. I disagree, but am unwilling to debate it with you. Mainly becaue I know I will never be able to change your opinion if your willing to disregard the most accepted authority on psychology when their opinions don't match what your take on the issue is.
Sorry about the first link not working...it had **** in the title, and as such it got turned into those little inoffensive stars, which consquently made the link not work. I admit that the other ones are more examples, rather than proving anything beyond a doubt. I think your being a bit unfair about the last one though. It clearly went far an beyond the other two in scope. 300 different animals shown to have homosexual realtions, not simpy dogs humping each other, but rather fully bonded realtionships in some cases, complete as any they would have with a female of the speices, minus the procreation,, is far an beyond ten penguins in a zoo. And they were observered outside of a zoo setting which would clearly raise issues about how natural the animals may or may not have been acting.
Aw....Cyndane I was about to use a bibilcal quote to support my point of view....but I agree with your point. I'd prefer no biblical quotes, even if it is somewhat light hearted or helps me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 3 2005, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 3 2005, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, my quote just happened to be on precisely the same topic as the quote I was replying to. Cyndande's doesn't seem to be relevant to anything in this thread, other than to say, "If you can quote a religious work, I can too!!!1!one!"
Correct me if I'm wrong... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gladly.
Hermeneutical studies. Basically it states that "No one can really know themselves untill they know the truth of themselves." (Of course knowing oneself through Krishna is the main reference but point still stands)
I'd say thats pretty relevant. Better advice then the bible. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 3 2005, 11:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 3 2005, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's BS. Even your anti-homosexual source states that there is a substantial genetic component to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not purely psychological OR purely biological.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Homosexuality is the body saying, "I am horny." and the mind saying, "I am most horny for THIS."
From the page I posted earlier...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The scientific truth is - our genes don't force us into anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological sex drive will always need the psychological aspect in order to determine where to aim this onslaught of hormones.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You need both the mind and the body. Your body gives you urges and your mind controls them. Without biological urges, you wouldn't feel anything more than platonic love. Your glands release certain hormones when you see an attractive female and certain hormones when you see an attractive male, depending on your sexual orientation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bisexual people in this thread don't seem to be confusing platonic and sexual attraction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do by saying, "We're all a little bisexual."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What I meant was that bisexuals feel sexual attraction towards both sexes, whereas pure heterosexuals and homosexuals only feel sexual attraction towards one sex. They feel pure sexual attraction, they aren't confusing sexual attraction and platonic attraction.
I don't agree with the statement that "we're all a little bisexual." I do however think that many (maybe even most) of us feel sexually attracted to both sexes, at least occaisonally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's as a reputable source about homosexuality, like the American Psychological Association:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to politely discredit your source - it has been known for many years that homosexual activists worked day and night to have the APA's take on homosexuality reversed. The APA chose to cave and go with the "politically correct" finding; which is that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.
However, let's work with your material here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The APA bases their research on science. Did they cave because of political pressure or because the science stated that homosexuality wasn't a disorder?
I find it hard to believe that homosexuality is a disorder, since it occurs in people who lead entirely unexceptional lives, excepting for practicing something that is completely consensual and harmless.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most certainly is a choice; and it has been proved by these twin studies. I am sorry to say that your APA's findings. (Made some 32 years ago) have been proven wrong by modern science. I would recommend they re-evaluate their stance on homosexuality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the twin studies only showed that homosexuality is both biological and environmental. I didn't think that they showed that homosexuals chose their sexual orientation. Let me quote what the APA says about this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of ****, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, back to your quotes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no way to know this. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sometimes. I don't think that we'll be able to consciously influence sexual orientation anytime soon. If we could do something like that, then we'd be able to prevent Depression, among other psychological illnesses. As for genetic influence, we may be able to change that eventually, but if you're right (which you're not) that homosexuality is a choice, then it won't make a difference. Even if we could change a child's sexual orientation in the womb, I don't necessarily think it's any more or less moral than changing that child's personality. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Change is possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Let me quote the APA: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all ****, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. ****, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It appears that our sources are at odds. I trust the APA more than Narth. Let's look at their mission statements: <!--QuoteBegin-APA+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (APA)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by
* the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner * the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions * the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement * the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association * the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications
thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Narth+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narth)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Right to Treatment NARTH respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.
We believe that clients have the right to claim a **** identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.
The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.
We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality. 2. **** Advocacy in Public Schools When schools offer information on sexual orientation, the facts should be presented in a fair and balanced manner.
Groups such as the American Psychological Association currently recommend that schools censor all "ex-****" materials, and prohibit discussion about those who have chosen to change their orientation. Respect for diversity, however, requires teaching about all principled positions. We live in a multi-cultural society where tolerance for differences is essential.
And when homosexuality is discussed, it must not cross the line into lifestyle advocacy. Ultimately, sexual lifestyle decisions hinge on matters of deeply held values. Schools should respect the right of families to convey their own social values to their children. 3. Pedophilia Early sexual experiences with an older, same-sex person are commonly reported by our homosexual clients. And some studies do suggest that such experiences may be more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals; in proportion to their numbers, that is, homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse a same-sex minor.
However, the data remains inconclusive for several reasons.
Studies have not always been able to determine the sexual orientation of the same-sex molester (was he a heterosexual man crossing over into same-sex behavior? a bisexual? or a homosexual?) Also, clinical reports suggest that a very substantial proportion of homosexual molestation is not reported to adults or legal authorities because the child was ashamed, fearful or considered the same-sex contact with an older person to have been "consensual."
For these and other reasons, it is difficult to come to a conclusive answer on the basis of the evidence now available. 4. Homophobia The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia--or irrational fear--of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." 5. Same-Sex Marriage Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development. 6. On the Meaning of Tolerance and Diversity "Tolerance and diversity" means nothing if it is extended to activists and not traditionalists on the homosexual issue.
Tolerance must also be extended to those people who take the principled, scientifically supportable view that homosexuality works against our human nature. 7. On the Causes of Homosexuality NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.
But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
There is no such thing as a "**** gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic or unchangeable.
Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
APA's mission statement is generic, promoting good psychology. From what I can tell, they're reputable. They're certainly popular, with 150,000 psychologists as members. Narth's mission statement talks about tolerance for people who hold that homosexuality is wrong, and tolerance for people who try to change their sexual orientation. That's fine, but I trust an organisation that isn't founded on one side of a single, specific issue, more than an organisation that is founded to examine a particular issue with a certain bias.
Wikipedia's article about <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy' target='_blank'>reparative therapy</a> leads me to believe that there are few reputable scientific organisations who are proponents of reparative therapy, but many who are opponents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality seems very unnatural to me, just listen to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Among white rats, which are very sexual animals, Steinach found that, when deprived of females, the males practise homosexuality, though only with males with whom they have long associated; the weaker rats play the passive part. But when a female is introduced they immediately turn to her; although they are occasionally altogether indifferent to sex, they never actually prefer their own sex.[6]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats not whatthis seems to indicate.
Nor this....
Nor this.....
Nor this one (yes its from a **** and lesbian rgiths site, but they seem to cite their sources well enough)....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. That first link doesn't work.
2. That penguin study seems to overlook the fact that animals deny certain female partners for whatever reason (it is a scientific phenomenon; beyond explanation, yet.). It is also humorous that you base your argument that homosexuality is "natural" on 10 penguins.
Well, if 10 penguins are doing it, it must be natural.
3. Again, animals deny sexual partners for unknown reasons. This study, as with the last was conducted in zoos. These animals are not in there natural habitat, so why would you expect them to act natural?
4. It's a pretty biased site but I'll take it on.
This one basically just reviews all the other links you posted. Some of these studies were conducted in zoos, etc. etc.
It appears to me as though homosexual activists jump every time a male dog humps another male dog. It isn't natural.
Need more reasons?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it happens in the wild, then you can call it natural. I don't trust this source, in any case, from reading this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been found by Muccioli, an Italian authority on pigeons, that among Belgian carrier-pigeons inverted practices may occur, even in the presence of many of the other sex.[10] This seems to be true inversion, though we are not told whether these birds were also attracted toward the opposite sex. <b>The birds of this family appear to be specially liable to sexual perversion.</b> Thus M.J. Bailly-Maitre, a breeder of great knowledge and a keen observer, wrote to Girard that "they are strange creatures in their manners and customs and are apt to elude the most persistent observer. <b>No animal is more depraved.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This language implies that the scientists who wrote this book started with preconceived notions of what was proper, which would have influenced their findings. It appears that this book was published in <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394441834/qid=1115183483/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9856966-7926258?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>1940</a>, which was when homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. Thus, if the researches say homosexuality among animals, it would be easy (and perhaps the correct-not in a political sense, but in a scientific sense-thing to do, at the time) to classify the animals practicing it as insane.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would hope that men would fit inside women better than any other sexual arrangement. After all, that's the only way we've been able to reproduce for almost our entire existence, so you'd think evolution would favor it. Still, homosexuals can experience pleasure with each other to the same degree that heterosexuals can have, so I don't think that the fact that homosexuals don't "fit' as well speaks against homosexuality or bisexuality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, life is not being created. Pro-creation may not be the only reason for sex but it is a natural course on which sex takes. Homosexuals can't re-produce and that makes it very unnatural indeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most sex is non procreative. Going by your logic, it's only natural to have sex at times when pregnancy is a possibility, meaning that elderly sex, sex at certain times during the menstrual period, sex between steril people, and other configurations, are all unnatural.
Hermeneutical studies. Basically it states that "No one can really know themselves untill they know the truth of themselves." (Of course knowing oneself through Krishna is the main reference but point still stands)
I'd say thats pretty relevant. Better advice then the bible. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok...um....huh?
Still lost on just what that means, and how it relates to this topic. Unless you're implying that we don't know enough about ourselves to proclaim what % straight we are?
And I wasn't trying to offer Biblical "advice" at all, merely pointing out that there is some amount of precendent for connecting THEMs statements.
<!--QuoteBegin-T h e m+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (T h e m)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, if you personally can see the relation between those two statements,[ the same as saying that getting angry at someone makes me "a bit of a murderer".]then you're right I guess. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 3 2005, 11:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 3 2005, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ^^^^^ My longest post ever. I apologize if it kills some modem connections, because if its immense size. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Almost a whole page by itself, wonderful theclam, was a brilliant read through as well. :-)
Still lost on just what that means, and how it relates to this topic. Unless you're implying that we don't know enough about ourselves to proclaim what % straight we are?
And I wasn't trying to offer Biblical "advice" at all, merely pointing out that there is some amount of precendent for connecting THEMs statements.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
I'm mildly bicurious, but nothing I really put much thought into since I've never been aroused by another man.
But I always leave room for error. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The "basic idea" behind most religions is usually something fundamentally at odds with the "basic ideas" behind most other religions, and however Basic it may be, is quite commonly very difficult to understand for someone raised under a different "Basic Idea". Christianity is no different in this regard.
In your summary, you have a concept of a "truth of ourselves". That concept doesn't exist in standard English, or in any belief set I have been introduced to. Therefore, I don't even know what a "truth of myself" is, much less how it is supposed to help me know myself.
To sum it up: Twins share 100% genetic data. Therefore, if homosexuality is genetic then both twins must ALWAYS be homosexual. This is not the case. Therefore, genetics do not determine sexual orientation.
So what does? Choice or environment are the only two answers readily available.
Either way, I have known **** men who have turned straight. So, I trust my experience over the APA's findings. They claim change isn't possible and that's just downright misleading.
You can change your sexual orientation because it's a choice or a habit. It isn't set in stone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 3 2005, 11:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 3 2005, 11:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The "basic idea" behind most religions is usually something fundamentally at odds with the "basic ideas" behind most other religions, and however Basic it may be, is quite commonly very difficult to understand for someone raised under a different "Basic Idea". Christianity is no different in this regard.
In your summary, you have a concept of a "truth of ourselves". That concept doesn't exist in standard English, or in any belief set I have been introduced to. Therefore, I don't even know what a "truth of myself" is, much less how it is supposed to help me know myself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Basically, your education in other cultures/ideas/beliefs is lacking, yes I would agree.
DarkAti: Only identical twins share the same information. Your source doesn't clarify which it used it said they "look alike." I've seen people look like others but that doesn't mean they are twins.
*edit* nevermind it does specify hehe :-) You need to specify DarkAti
<!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. <b> But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. </b> Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been looking for sources quoting that percentage and I can not find it, where did they get it? Because 90% of statistics are made up on the spot, this one included.
<!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> . Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 4 2005, 12:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 4 2005, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You should re-read the twin study.
To sum it up: Twins share 100% genetic data. Therefore, if homosexuality is genetic then both twins must ALWAYS be homosexual. This is not the case. Therefore, genetics do not determine sexual orientation.
So what does? Choice or environment are the only two answers readily available.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Several twin studies have been cited in this thread, ranging from ~25-70% correlation. I've never seen a survey of the general populace that have had >10% homosexuality. This means that there is something special about twins that makes it more likely that a pair of twins will be homosexual than a pair random people.
Now, that means that homosexuality must be environmental (environmental doesn't necessarily imply personal choice) or genetic or both. You said it yourself, genes don't determine behavior, they only give an inclination towards certain behaviors. Therefore we can't rule genetics out, just because there isn't a 100% correlation. I don't have any information myself that indicates which option is correct, so I'll trust what I've heard from scientists, and say that it's a combination of both.
Also, the less correlation, the more likely it is that choice is a factor. If it's a genetic or environmental determined trait, then twins would have a higher correlation, because they exist in similiar environments and have identical genes. If it's a choice issue, then twins would have a low correlation, since each is making a choice not based upon their environment or genetics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either way, I have known **** men who have turned straight. So, I trust my experience over the APA's findings. They claim change isn't possible and that's just downright misleading.
You can change your sexual orientation because it's a choice or a habit. It isn't set in stone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Were they truly **** before, or did they get pressured into it for some reason? Are they truly straight now, are they fooling themselves or you, or are they celibate? No offense, but I'll trust the APA's scientific evidence more than your anecdotal evidence.
Also, I found out a little bit more about the APA's switch in the 1970s. This is from their official page about resolutions regarding homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html). <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. The American Psychological Association supports the action taken on December 15, 1973, by the American Psychiatric Association, removing homosexuality from that Association's official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association therefore adopts the following resolution:
<b>Homosexuality, per se, implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities</b>:
Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of metal illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.
2. Regarding discrimination against homosexuals, the American Psychological Association adopts the following resolution concerning their civil and legal rights:
The American Psychological Association deplores all public and private discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing against those who engage in or who have engaged in homosexual activities and declares that no burden of proof of such judgement, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon these individuals greater than that imposed on any other persons. Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer citizens who engage in acts of homosexuality the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. (1975)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've heard from psychiatrists that the official definition of a mental illness requires that it significantly impairs that person that has it. It makes sense that homosexuality wouldn't be regarded as a mental illness, because it doesn't impair you in the ways mentioned above.
What bothers me a bit about the study is how the data was obtained. I mean, I'm heterosexual. Now, according to Kinsey's scale, I am statistically likely to be at least part homosexual. How do I know this? I have no homosexual tendencies <i>that I am aware of.</i> How do I find out? Now, perhaps I AM one of those rare few entirely hetero people, but it's rather unlikely according to this scale, isn't it? Maybe I am suppressing some homosexual tendencies (subconsciously, since it's not something I'm aware of). But how do I find out? On the Kinsey scale, I am most likely one of these: 1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual How do I come to a conclusion in this matter? How do I find out where I stand? I'm not about to start a romantic relationship with another man just to find out.
On another note, I find some of the argumentation for that scale inherently flawed: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, from this we can deduct a variety of things: Sheep and goats as such do not exist. Almost any animal you encounter that looks like a sheep or a goat will actually be a mixture of the two. We are not born with four limbs, but with somewhere between zero and eight. The prevalence of people with two arms and two legs that you might have noticed is entirely coincidental. We are all hermaphrodites.
As you can see, I very much take issue with that argumentation. Nature quite often deals with discrete categories it seems, particularly when we are talking gender. If gender is so highly polarized, why not sexual preference?
All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 12:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 12:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> . Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility.
<!--QuoteBegin-Athena+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, their <i>opinions</i> are most likely biased...although you can make the same accusation against most other groups with a stake in the matter, including the APA. However, that doesn't autmatically invalidate their scientific studies, which still have plenty of credibility. And the studies are referenced and cited in that article, so you can see exactly where they got their data from.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 4 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 4 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 12:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 12:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> . Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using himself as any sort of a reference even just to promote is own book is indeed hurting credibility. You must have not done many papers that required research.
If you were to turn do a paper on say sunblock for your senior year in highschool, and enjoyed it enought to re-do a paper in college the professor would laugh at you if you cited yourself as a reference. Same applies here.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Athena+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, their <i>opinions</i> are most likely biased...although you can make the same accusation against most other groups with a stake in the matter, including the APA. However, that doesn't autmatically invalidate their scientific studies, which still have plenty of credibility. And the studies are referenced and cited in that article, so you can see exactly where they got their data from. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Calling the APA biased is calling the cauldron black. <!--QuoteBegin-APA website+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (APA website)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Who We Are Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 150,000 members... I'd say thats quite a bit more impressive then anything NARTH has. Not to mention they federal government agrees with their decisions concerning diseases of the mind. Yeah... so biased.
Even the national geographic agrees that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. As documented <a href='http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html' target='_blank'>here</a> Oh yes, I forgot to mention they are biased [/sarcasm] A few fun little facts from the article. <!--QuoteBegin-National Geographic+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (National Geographic)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> James Owen in London for National Geographic News July 23, 2004 <b> Date above is important, its a NEW STUDY </b> Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.
On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.
"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. <b> The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural. </b>
In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. And only this month, President Bush vowed to continue his bid to ban **** marriages after the Senate blocked the proposal. <b> Bush lost... again </b>
For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.
In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.
He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They end by saying they don't know for sure, like any source would if they are not biased. It is occuring in the "natural" world and it always has.
Those that disagree are disllusioned, as this article and this isn't the only one suggests.
One more article because I'm feeling generous, and this one is from the university of wisconsin, so even college students know it is occuring in the natural world. <a href='http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.****.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml' target='_blank'>Wisconsin article (The Cardinal)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 4 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 4 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 4 2005, 12:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 4 2005, 12:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> . Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using himself as any sort of a reference even just to promote is own book is indeed hurting credibility. You must have not done many papers that required research.
If you were to turn do a paper on say sunblock for your senior year in highschool, and enjoyed it enought to re-do a paper in college the professor would laugh at you if you cited yourself as a reference. Same applies here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I suppose professors shouldn't be allowed to use their own self-authored books as references for the classes they teach... (hurts credibility).
Statements like this are par for the course for you... just because you disagree with a point of view doesn't make it non-credible.
Your lack of logic and reasoning in this situation confuses and frightens me.
Comments
That's BS. Even your anti-homosexual source states that there is a substantial genetic component to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not purely psychological OR purely biological.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you're confusing natural, healthy same-sex attraction with unnatural homosexual attraction. Of course we all crave attention from our same sex but it doesn't mean it's sexual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bisexual people in this thread don't seem to be confusing platonic and sexual attraction.
Let's as a reputable source about homosexuality, like the American Psychological Association:
<a href='http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html' target='_blank'>http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?</i>
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; <b>most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.</b> In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?</i>
<b>No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight.</b> Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?</i>
<b>No.</b> Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. <b>The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.</b>
However, not all ****, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. ****, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?</i>
<b>Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented.</b> For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the fact is, homosexuality is unnatural.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you get this opinion? This is most definately not a fact.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not what<a href='http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.****.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml' target='_blank'>this</a> seems to indicate.
Nor <a href='http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0226/iacentos2.shtml' target='_blank'>this</a>....
Nor <a href='http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html' target='_blank'>this</a>.....
Nor <a href='http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/zoology.html' target='_blank'>this</a> one (yes its from a **** and lesbian rgiths site, but they seem to cite their sources well enough)....
1. <u><b>Sexuality transition</b></u> - heterosexual going homosexual or visa versa.
2. <u><b>Sexuality confusion</b></u> - there has been some sort of sexual abuse done to you and this is part of an effect of the sexual trauma
<i>So before I can really help you or answer your quandaries I must have to level with me, with us. Which is it?</i>
It's ok if you are homosexual just as much as if you are heterosexual. I have some very cool friends of mine which are ****. I'm personally 100% (or damn close to it anyways) heterosexual, but I'm also completely accepting of people who are different from me. To me, I don't value your character as a person or judge you differently because of your sexual preferences. I relish diversity. If somebody ever wonders if I might be interested in a homosexual relationship, my common response is just so say truthfully and flatly "sorry dude I just don't swing that way. *shrug*." Probably followed up by "Hey do you know any nice chicks?" since **** guys are usually friends with lots of women, seriously it's quite uncanny. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(and there's a good reason for that btw)
Although I must warn you, the NSF Discussion Forum is probably one of the <i>worst</i> places I can think of to find people who will be ok with you being homosexual and give you good advice on your question. (there are some extremist religious right regulars on this particular forum, no personal offense intended to these people). So I'm not going to be surprised if I see offensive and cruel remarks from these people as they will view your homosexual side as sinful and wrong. You're going to have to listen to yourself on this one. If you haven't been sexually abused then seriously you should admit to yourself how you really feel. It is very common to find *** in American society who because of the social environment, feel pressured to believe that they are in the wrong and are thus stuck halfway between homosexual and heterosexual. (as society pushes them hetero and they are being pulled towards homosexual) You'd be shocked how often this is the case; I'm really not kidding when I say it is almost always one of those two reasons above. Of course there could always be exceptions but I'm very much in doubt.
~off topic~
On a side note I would like to motion that **** porn and straight porn get separated in adult stores. I think Adam from Love Line put it best (not an exact quote):
<!--QuoteBegin-Adam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Adam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nothing is worse for straight guys than **** porn. You're walking in the adult store and of course you have to be looking only a few in front of you like you got blinders on because you never want to run into somebody you know and make eye contact. It just makes for a very awkward situation. But so your looking around right and you go though the different fetishes and keep on walking only looking at a few titles at a time and then you see a picture and you're thinking like "hey those guys are really giving it to that chick who has a mustache—aaaah! Oh god! Oh my god! That image is now burned into my brain! no!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well personally I've never been a big fan of porn (perhaps because of the schools I went to growing up, who knows who cares) and I've never been in an adult bookstore to be honest but I think he makes a good point. You're browsing some porn thing online or click on a link which took you to one and you see "hot anal action" or "three guys" and it just repulsive for people who aren't into that.
~back on topic~
I think a good point was made about nobody being perfectly 100% hetero or homosexual. True, but why does that matter? I mean consider writing with a pen, it isn't 100% safe but it's damn insignificant the odds that it won't be safe. (well I guess that pen in <i>007: Golden Eye</i> wasn't safe but I'm now just confusing my point) So am I 100% (or is anybody for that matter), no; but am I more that 99%, yeah. So it doesn't really make a difference.
On a side note, at an all Male Catholic Highschool the **** question has to be dealt with more than the rest of society. It is a common freshman thing with the typical male fighting with the other males to establish hierarchy to use "Are you ****?" and "fagget / ***" as insults regardless of whether or not the person in question is or isn't (I think we had like what, 3 people out of more than 1500 who were actually ****). Perhaps straight guys who are already intolerant of others hate *** as a way of feeling better about themselves, bully the weaker. Whatever the stupid and inexcusable reason, it begins to become old and teamwork and class unity becomes the focus. By the time you are a senior you have become to hate the childish attitude and intolerance. Typically seeing some little punk trying to bully somebody different from him calling him a *** and stuff tends to make senior want to come over their and drop kick your little punk arse. Unfortunately I don't think any of you people who didn't go through that change or evolution are at that level. Many of you have not had to improve as a person in that fashion and can still carry that immature freshman like blind hatred for those who are different than you. And for people like me that is far more revolting that guy on guy action could ever be. Such intolerance is immature and inexcusable.
But first tings first, Mr. Euoplocephalus I need you to answer my "which is it?" question honestly with me. I am always open to exceptions, in nature there always are exceptions, but it'd be rare. And as far as "aren't we all a little bent?" well yes as a matter of fact we all are but there comes a point with some people like myself where the degree of that is so insignificant that it really does not matter.
Honestly? Niether.
I've never been abused, in anyway.
I'm also sure I'm not in "transition" as you call it. I've came to grips with the idea of being bi about..oh 7 or 8 years ago, and have not had any reason to question it since. I've been deeply attracted to both guys and girls, on both an emotional and sexual level, through out this period.
I've also never felt that I was in transition in this regard at any point in my life. As long as I can remember being attracted to girls, I can remember being attracted to guys. Took a while to sort those feelings out of course, but its definatly not that I suddenly said to myself during my sophmore year of high school that, "hey, I've never noticed this but that guy over there is hot...but since i still find that chick hot, I must be bi"
Thats me anyways. It closely reflects what a female friend of mine who is also openly more or less 50-50 bi, has told me in converstations about her sexuality.
And as this being a bad place to find acceptance, I'm past that. I've found acceptance enough in my friends, and most of my family, as well as, perhaps most importantly, myself. Beyond that, I'm used to offensive and cruel remarks. I'm going to college in a fairly conservative Montana town. One of my roomates literaly has not talked to me since he foudn out I was bi, which in someways is worse than if he had made remarks. At least then i could try and talk to him about it. As is stands I've just gald I'm moving out this Friday. I wish that people weren't like that but they are, and there always will be somebody that will be like that. On the bright side, so far most of the responsed to this thread have been if not supportive of my idea, at least accepting of my stance to some degree, which was honestly a plesant suprise, and I think that as a society we are getting more liberal. Just as racsim continues to haunt our nation, so will homophobia for years to come. But I suspect that within my life time things will have gotten better, just as the problem with racism has greatly improved in the last 50 years.
Edit: prehaps your opinion comes from the fact that people tend to eventualy enter long term, hopefuly perminate relationships at some point during their life with one other person. If I happen to enter one of these with a guy it doesn't mean I'm ****, it just means I'm bi, but in a commited relationship with a guy. Same if it happens with a girl.
Honestly? Niether.
I've never been abused, in anyway.
I'm also sure I'm not in "transition" as you call it. I've came to grips with the idea of being bi about..oh 7 or 8 years ago, and have not had any reason to question it since. I've been deeply attracted to both guys and girls, on both an emotional and sexual level, through out this period.
I've also never felt that I was in transition in this regard at any point in my life. As long as I can remember being attracted to girls, I can remember being attracted to guys. Took a while to sort those feelings out of course, but its definatly not that I suddenly said to myself during my sophmore year of high school that, "hey, I've never noticed this but that guy over there is hot...but since i still find that chick hot, I must be bi"
Thats me anyways. It closely reflects what a female friend of mine who is also openly more or less 50-50 bi, has told me in converstations about her sexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem you and your female friend are exceptions then. You're exceptional! Heh. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as this being a bad place to find acceptance, I'm past that. I've found acceptance enough in my friends, and most of my family, as well as, perhaps most importantly, myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Standing ovation* Good for you! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Beyond that, I'm used to offensive and cruel remarks. I'm going to college in a fairly conservative Montana town.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me groans
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of my roomates literaly has not talked to me since he found out I was bi, which in someways is worse than if he had made remarks. At least then i could try and talk to him about it. As is stands I've just gald I'm moving out this Friday. I wish that people weren't like that but they are, and there always will be somebody that will be like that. On the bright side, so far most of the responsed to this thread have been if not supportive of my idea, at least accepting of my stance to some degree, which was honestly a plesant suprise, and I think that as a society we are getting more liberal. Just as racsim continues to haunt our nation, so will homophobia for years to come. But I suspect that within my life time things will have gotten better, just as the problem with racism has greatly improved in the last 50 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And hopefully it will continue to improve.
*knocks on nearest wooden object, well sorta... but plywood counts I think*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: prehaps your opinion comes from the fact that people tend to eventualy enter long term, hopefuly perminate relationships at some point during their life with one other person. If I happen to enter one of these with a guy it doesn't mean I'm ****, it just means I'm bi, but in a commited relationship with a guy. Same if it happens with a girl.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. That got me thinking there was a really wonderful show on TLC I caught a bit of earlier when I went to visit my mom. Anyways it was that show <a href='http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/babystory/babystory.html' target='_blank'>A Baby Story</a> and usually I'm just kinda like nah the one one today was about this homosexual couple who had a sister-in-law who was a surrogate mother for a baby for the two guys. Personally I would have suggested adoption (as I did for a **** friend of mine who was interested in raising a child with his partner) but the thought was really cool and reminded me that hey isn't that what it's all about. A loving relationship. Family. Happiness. I mean who care if you are guy and she is a cyborg chick, I mean if you're in love your in love. Sure it's nonstandard and not normal but what the hell is "normal" anyways, such a subjective term. Besides normal and perfect uniformity is boring.
Robotish voice: "I r clone #643. I r like girl #245 because of otpimal enhancement to my genetic code. I r go to college at 18 years, 3 months, 8 hours, 21 minutes, and 43.6231 seconds. I r follow all laws established by normality law and will not enjoy or do anything that does not conform to accepted law of normality. I r no think for myself because of article 3.41a established by Leviticus 20:13"
No freedom is better thank you very much. I'm happy for you Euoplocephalus.
But to say that noticing someone is attractive also makes the noticer "a bit bi" is the same as saying that getting angry at someone makes me "a bit of a murderer".
So, if you personally can see the relation between those two statements, then you're right I guess.
No. Homosexuality is the body saying, "I am horny." and the mind saying, "I am most horny for THIS."
From the page I posted earlier...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The scientific truth is - our genes don't force us into anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological sex drive will always need the psychological aspect in order to determine where to aim this onslaught of hormones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bisexual people in this thread don't seem to be confusing platonic and sexual attraction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do by saying, "We're all a little bisexual."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's as a reputable source about homosexuality, like the American Psychological Association:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to politely discredit your source - it has been known for many years that homosexual activists worked day and night to have the APA's take on homosexuality reversed. The APA chose to cave and go with the "politically correct" finding; which is that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.
However, let's work with your material here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most certainly is a choice; and it has been proved by these twin studies. I am sorry to say that your APA's findings. (Made some 32 years ago) have been proven wrong by modern science. I would recommend they re-evaluate their stance on homosexuality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In summary:
1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.
2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.
3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
5. Change is possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That last point is what really discredits homosexuality as anything other than a choice. If someone is ADD, they can't turn it off. They can't focus. Many times children are diagnosed with ADD only to find out later that these children CAN focus if they apply themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where did you get this opinion? This is most definately not a fact. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality seems very unnatural to me, just listen to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Among white rats, which are very sexual animals,
Steinach found that, when deprived of females, the males practise
homosexuality, though only with males with whom they have long associated;
the weaker rats play the passive part. But when a female is introduced
they immediately turn to her; although they are occasionally altogether
indifferent to sex, they never actually prefer their own sex.[6]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read It: <a href='http://www.aboutrealstuff.com/books/sitpos2/page-ae.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.aboutrealstuff.com/books/sitpos2/page-ae.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats not whatthis seems to indicate.
Nor this....
Nor this.....
Nor this one (yes its from a **** and lesbian rgiths site, but they seem to cite their sources well enough)....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. That first link doesn't work.
2. That penguin study seems to overlook the fact that animals deny certain female partners for whatever reason (it is a scientific phenomenon; beyond explanation, yet.). It is also humorous that you base your argument that homosexuality is "natural" on 10 penguins.
Well, if 10 penguins are doing it, it must be natural.
3. Again, animals deny sexual partners for unknown reasons. This study, as with the last was conducted in zoos. These animals are not in there natural habitat, so why would you expect them to act natural?
4. It's a pretty biased site but I'll take it on.
This one basically just reviews all the other links you posted. Some of these studies were conducted in zoos, etc. etc.
It appears to me as though homosexual activists jump every time a male dog humps another male dog. It isn't natural.
Need more reasons?
How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman.
Also, life is not being created. Pro-creation may not be the only reason for sex but it is a natural course on which sex takes. Homosexuals can't re-produce and that makes it very unnatural indeed.
~ DarkATi
But to say that noticing someone is attractive also makes the noticer "a bit bi" is the same as saying that getting angry at someone makes me "a bit of a murderer".
So, if you personally can see the relation between those two statements, then you're right I guess. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew 5: 21-22
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Sorry...couldn't resist <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that isn't true. Not all men fit in all women. Just because you "think" they go together doesn't mean that it actually works that way. Men can be too small or to big depending upon the woman's size.
Boonabos are another species of animal that uses homosexuality very commonly, just for what appears the to the pure enjoyment of it. (I'm sure apos or ageri will correct me on how to spell it right.)
Also, do not quote the bible in a thread that has NOTHING to do with it. In fact since some of you like the bible so much.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I shall now explain to you fully this phenomenal knowledge along with its realization; which by knowing nothing further remains to be known in this world.
Out of the thousands of men hardly one endeavors for the perfection of self-realization, and of those so endeavoring hardly has one acheived perfection of self-realization and of those hardly know Me in truth.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that isn't true. Not all men fit in all women. Just because you "think" they go together doesn't mean that it actually works that way. Men can be too small or to big depending upon the woman's size. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As un-pc as it sounds. This line of argumentation needs to bring ethnic matching into consideration.
And secondly, I think DarkATi's argument was based on averages in a group. Statistical anomolies (such as a cow with 2 heads) have no place in a statistically based argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that isn't true. Not all men fit in all women. Just because you "think" they go together doesn't mean that it actually works that way. Men can be too small or to big depending upon the woman's size.
Boonabos are another species of animal that uses homosexuality very commonly, just for what appears the to the pure enjoyment of it. (I'm sure apos or ageri will correct me on how to spell it right.)
Also, do not quote the bible in a thread that has NOTHING to do with it. In fact since some of you like the bible so much.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bhagavad-Gita 7:2-3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I shall now explain to you fully this phenomenal knowledge along with its realization; which by knowing nothing further remains to be known in this world.
Out of the thousands of men hardly one endeavors for the perfection of self-realization, and of those so endeavoring hardly has one acheived perfection of self-realization and of those hardly know Me in truth.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am talking more in general. In general, the man fits the woman, by design.
Also, I agree, leave the Bible out of something like this unless there is good reason to introduce it.
~ DarkATi
Correct me if I'm wrong...
Actualy....if your doing it right they can fit pretty damn good <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That last point is what really discredits homosexuality as anything other than a choice. If someone is ADD, they can't turn it off. They can't focus. Many times children are diagnosed with ADD only to find out later that these children CAN focus if they apply themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very flawed reasoning. ADD is one of the most over diagnosed disorders in the US. I thought that everybody had seen some news article on that. Honestly. In case you missed it, heres the first synopisis of the problem that came up on google: <a href='http://www.sacramentolda.org/observer/obs02/news.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>. Its a bit old, but yeah...it points out the problem with this example. Futhemore it simply does not follow that because one mental disorder can be changed that all others can be as well.
And then theres the always the fact that bisexuality is not, in my opinion a mental disorder in anyway. You seemd pretty conviced of it, and of a massive cop-out for political reasons. I disagree, but am unwilling to debate it with you. Mainly becaue I know I will never be able to change your opinion if your willing to disregard the most accepted authority on psychology when their opinions don't match what your take on the issue is.
Sorry about the first link not working...it had **** in the title, and as such it got turned into those little inoffensive stars, which consquently made the link not work.
I admit that the other ones are more examples, rather than proving anything beyond a doubt.
I think your being a bit unfair about the last one though. It clearly went far an beyond the other two in scope. 300 different animals shown to have homosexual realtions, not simpy dogs humping each other, but rather fully bonded realtionships in some cases, complete as any they would have with a female of the speices, minus the procreation,, is far an beyond ten penguins in a zoo. And they were observered outside of a zoo setting which would clearly raise issues about how natural the animals may or may not have been acting.
Aw....Cyndane I was about to use a bibilcal quote to support my point of view....but I agree with your point. I'd prefer no biblical quotes, even if it is somewhat light hearted or helps me.
Correct me if I'm wrong... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gladly.
Hermeneutical studies. Basically it states that "No one can really know themselves untill they know the truth of themselves." (Of course knowing oneself through Krishna is the main reference but point still stands)
I'd say thats pretty relevant. Better advice then the bible. :-)
No. Homosexuality is the body saying, "I am horny." and the mind saying, "I am most horny for THIS."
From the page I posted earlier...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The scientific truth is - our genes don't force us into anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The biological sex drive will always need the psychological aspect in order to determine where to aim this onslaught of hormones.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need both the mind and the body. Your body gives you urges and your mind controls them. Without biological urges, you wouldn't feel anything more than platonic love. Your glands release certain hormones when you see an attractive female and certain hormones when you see an attractive male, depending on your sexual orientation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bisexual people in this thread don't seem to be confusing platonic and sexual attraction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do by saying, "We're all a little bisexual."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I meant was that bisexuals feel sexual attraction towards both sexes, whereas pure heterosexuals and homosexuals only feel sexual attraction towards one sex. They feel pure sexual attraction, they aren't confusing sexual attraction and platonic attraction.
I don't agree with the statement that "we're all a little bisexual." I do however think that many (maybe even most) of us feel sexually attracted to both sexes, at least occaisonally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's as a reputable source about homosexuality, like the American Psychological Association:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to politely discredit your source - it has been known for many years that homosexual activists worked day and night to have the APA's take on homosexuality reversed. The APA chose to cave and go with the "politically correct" finding; which is that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.
However, let's work with your material here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The APA bases their research on science. Did they cave because of political pressure or because the science stated that homosexuality wasn't a disorder?
I find it hard to believe that homosexuality is a disorder, since it occurs in people who lead entirely unexceptional lives, excepting for practicing something that is completely consensual and harmless.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most certainly is a choice; and it has been proved by these twin studies. I am sorry to say that your APA's findings. (Made some 32 years ago) have been proven wrong by modern science. I would recommend they re-evaluate their stance on homosexuality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the twin studies only showed that homosexuality is both biological and environmental. I didn't think that they showed that homosexuals chose their sexual orientation.
Let me quote what the APA says about this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of ****, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, back to your quotes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no way to know this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes. I don't think that we'll be able to consciously influence sexual orientation anytime soon. If we could do something like that, then we'd be able to prevent Depression, among other psychological illnesses. As for genetic influence, we may be able to change that eventually, but if you're right (which you're not) that homosexuality is a choice, then it won't make a difference. Even if we could change a child's sexual orientation in the womb, I don't necessarily think it's any more or less moral than changing that child's personality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5. Change is possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Let me quote the APA:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either **** or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all ****, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. ****, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It appears that our sources are at odds. I trust the APA more than Narth. Let's look at their mission statements:
<!--QuoteBegin-APA+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (APA)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by
* the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner
* the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions
* the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement
* the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association
* the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications
thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Narth+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narth)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Right to Treatment
NARTH respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.
We believe that clients have the right to claim a **** identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.
The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.
We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality.
2. **** Advocacy in Public Schools
When schools offer information on sexual orientation, the facts should be presented in a fair and balanced manner.
Groups such as the American Psychological Association currently recommend that schools censor all "ex-****" materials, and prohibit discussion about those who have chosen to change their orientation. Respect for diversity, however, requires teaching about all principled positions. We live in a multi-cultural society where tolerance for differences is essential.
And when homosexuality is discussed, it must not cross the line into lifestyle advocacy. Ultimately, sexual lifestyle decisions hinge on matters of deeply held values. Schools should respect the right of families to convey their own social values to their children.
3. Pedophilia
Early sexual experiences with an older, same-sex person are commonly reported by our homosexual clients. And some studies do suggest that such experiences may be more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals; in proportion to their numbers, that is, homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse a same-sex minor.
However, the data remains inconclusive for several reasons.
Studies have not always been able to determine the sexual orientation of the same-sex molester (was he a heterosexual man crossing over into same-sex behavior? a bisexual? or a homosexual?) Also, clinical reports suggest that a very substantial proportion of homosexual molestation is not reported to adults or legal authorities because the child was ashamed, fearful or considered the same-sex contact with an older person to have been "consensual."
For these and other reasons, it is difficult to come to a conclusive answer on the basis of the evidence now available.
4. Homophobia
The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia--or irrational fear--of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia."
5. Same-Sex Marriage
Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development.
6. On the Meaning of Tolerance and Diversity
"Tolerance and diversity" means nothing if it is extended to activists and not traditionalists on the homosexual issue.
Tolerance must also be extended to those people who take the principled, scientifically supportable view that homosexuality works against our human nature.
7. On the Causes of Homosexuality
NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.
But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
There is no such thing as a "**** gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic or unchangeable.
Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
APA's mission statement is generic, promoting good psychology. From what I can tell, they're reputable. They're certainly popular, with 150,000 psychologists as members.
Narth's mission statement talks about tolerance for people who hold that homosexuality is wrong, and tolerance for people who try to change their sexual orientation. That's fine, but I trust an organisation that isn't founded on one side of a single, specific issue, more than an organisation that is founded to examine a particular issue with a certain bias.
Wikipedia's article about <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy' target='_blank'>reparative therapy</a> leads me to believe that there are few reputable scientific organisations who are proponents of reparative therapy, but many who are opponents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality seems very unnatural to me, just listen to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Among white rats, which are very sexual animals,
Steinach found that, when deprived of females, the males practise
homosexuality, though only with males with whom they have long associated;
the weaker rats play the passive part. But when a female is introduced
they immediately turn to her; although they are occasionally altogether
indifferent to sex, they never actually prefer their own sex.[6]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read It: <a href='http://www.aboutrealstuff.com/books/sitpos2/page-ae.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.aboutrealstuff.com/books/sitpos2/page-ae.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats not whatthis seems to indicate.
Nor this....
Nor this.....
Nor this one (yes its from a **** and lesbian rgiths site, but they seem to cite their sources well enough)....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. That first link doesn't work.
2. That penguin study seems to overlook the fact that animals deny certain female partners for whatever reason (it is a scientific phenomenon; beyond explanation, yet.). It is also humorous that you base your argument that homosexuality is "natural" on 10 penguins.
Well, if 10 penguins are doing it, it must be natural.
3. Again, animals deny sexual partners for unknown reasons. This study, as with the last was conducted in zoos. These animals are not in there natural habitat, so why would you expect them to act natural?
4. It's a pretty biased site but I'll take it on.
This one basically just reviews all the other links you posted. Some of these studies were conducted in zoos, etc. etc.
It appears to me as though homosexual activists jump every time a male dog humps another male dog. It isn't natural.
Need more reasons?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it happens in the wild, then you can call it natural. I don't trust this source, in any case, from reading this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has
been found by Muccioli, an Italian authority on pigeons, that among
Belgian carrier-pigeons inverted practices may occur, even in the presence
of many of the other sex.[10] This seems to be true inversion, though we
are not told whether these birds were also attracted toward the opposite
sex. <b>The birds of this family appear to be specially liable to sexual
perversion.</b> Thus M.J. Bailly-Maitre, a breeder of great knowledge and a
keen observer, wrote to Girard that "they are strange creatures in their
manners and customs and are apt to elude the most persistent observer. <b>No
animal is more depraved.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This language implies that the scientists who wrote this book started with preconceived notions of what was proper, which would have influenced their findings. It appears that this book was published in <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394441834/qid=1115183483/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9856966-7926258?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>1940</a>, which was when homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. Thus, if the researches say homosexuality among animals, it would be easy (and perhaps the correct-not in a political sense, but in a scientific sense-thing to do, at the time) to classify the animals practicing it as insane.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about - the parts don't fit. You can make them but it will never be the same as a male and a female union. It is truly astounding how well the man fits inside the woman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would hope that men would fit inside women better than any other sexual arrangement. After all, that's the only way we've been able to reproduce for almost our entire existence, so you'd think evolution would favor it. Still, homosexuals can experience pleasure with each other to the same degree that heterosexuals can have, so I don't think that the fact that homosexuals don't "fit' as well speaks against homosexuality or bisexuality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, life is not being created. Pro-creation may not be the only reason for sex but it is a natural course on which sex takes. Homosexuals can't re-produce and that makes it very unnatural indeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most sex is non procreative. Going by your logic, it's only natural to have sex at times when pregnancy is a possibility, meaning that elderly sex, sex at certain times during the menstrual period, sex between steril people, and other configurations, are all unnatural.
My longest post ever. I apologize if it kills some modem connections, because if its immense size.
Hermeneutical studies. Basically it states that "No one can really know themselves untill they know the truth of themselves." (Of course knowing oneself through Krishna is the main reference but point still stands)
I'd say thats pretty relevant. Better advice then the bible. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok...um....huh?
Still lost on just what that means, and how it relates to this topic. Unless you're implying that we don't know enough about ourselves to proclaim what % straight we are?
And I wasn't trying to offer Biblical "advice" at all, merely pointing out that there is some amount of precendent for connecting THEMs statements.
<!--QuoteBegin-T h e m+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (T h e m)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, if you personally can see the relation between those two statements,[ the same as saying that getting angry at someone makes me "a bit of a murderer".]then you're right I guess. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My longest post ever. I apologize if it kills some modem connections, because if its immense size. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Almost a whole page by itself, wonderful theclam, was a brilliant read through as well. :-)
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Ok...um....huh?
Still lost on just what that means, and how it relates to this topic. Unless you're implying that we don't know enough about ourselves to proclaim what % straight we are?
And I wasn't trying to offer Biblical "advice" at all, merely pointing out that there is some amount of precendent for connecting THEMs statements.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they said people can't understand that basic idea of hindu teachings. Bravo.
But I always leave room for error. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In your summary, you have a concept of a "truth of ourselves". That concept doesn't exist in standard English, or in any belief set I have been introduced to. Therefore, I don't even know what a "truth of myself" is, much less how it is supposed to help me know myself.
To sum it up: Twins share 100% genetic data. Therefore, if homosexuality is genetic then both twins must ALWAYS be homosexual. This is not the case. Therefore, genetics do not determine sexual orientation.
So what does? Choice or environment are the only two answers readily available.
Either way, I have known **** men who have turned straight. So, I trust my experience over the APA's findings. They claim change isn't possible and that's just downright misleading.
You can change your sexual orientation because it's a choice or a habit. It isn't set in stone.
~ DarkATi
In your summary, you have a concept of a "truth of ourselves". That concept doesn't exist in standard English, or in any belief set I have been introduced to. Therefore, I don't even know what a "truth of myself" is, much less how it is supposed to help me know myself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, your education in other cultures/ideas/beliefs is lacking, yes I would agree.
DarkAti: Only identical twins share the same information. Your source doesn't clarify which it used it said they "look alike." I've seen people look like others but that doesn't mean they are twins.
<a href='http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da3%26uid%3d06EBCCA706CFDCD14%26sid%3d13A02DE0689468724%26qid%3dA72CC9B9639A4448991D3CAF2C334003%26io%3d0%26sv%3dza5cb0de6%26o%3d10234%26ask%3dDo%2bidentical%2btwins%2bshare%2bthe%2bsame%2bgenetic%2binformation%253f%26uip%3d4509f95e%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dMicrosoft%2bWord%2b-%2bTwins%2b-%2bidentical%2band%2bfraternal.doc%26ac%3d3%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d233%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.betterhealth.vic.gov.au%2fbhcv2%2fbhcpdf.nsf%2fByPDF%2fTwins_identical_and_fraternal%2f%24File%2fTwins_identical_and_fraternal.pdf&bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dDo%2bidentical%2btwins%2bshare%2bthe%2bsame%2bgenetic%2binformation%253f%26o%3d10234%26page%3d1&q=Do+identical+twins+share+the+same+genetic+information%3f&s=a3&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.betterhealth.vic.gov.au%2fbhcv2%2fbhcpdf.nsf%2fByPDF%2fTwins_identical_and_fraternal%2f%24File%2fTwins_identical_and_fraternal.pdf&qte=0&o=10234&abs=...the+difference+is+to+have+the+twins+DNA+tested.++Identical+twins+share+the+same+genetic+information%2c+while+fraternal+twins+share+around+half.&****=Microsoft+Word+-+Twins+-+identical+and+fraternal.doc&bin=&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da3%26uid%3d06EBCCA706CFDCD14%26sid%3d13A02DE0689468724%26qid%3dA72CC9B9639A4448991D3CAF2C334003%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0de6%26o%3d10234%26ask%3dDo%2bidentical%2btwins%2bshare%2bthe%2bsame%2bgenetic%2binformation%253f%26uip%3d4509f95e%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1' target='_blank'>Identical twins</a>
*edit* nevermind it does specify hehe :-) You need to specify DarkAti
<!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. <b> But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. </b> Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been looking for sources quoting that percentage and I can not find it, where did they get it? Because 90% of statistics are made up on the spot, this one included.
<!--QuoteBegin-NARTH article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NARTH article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
. Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility
To sum it up: Twins share 100% genetic data. Therefore, if homosexuality is genetic then both twins must ALWAYS be homosexual. This is not the case. Therefore, genetics do not determine sexual orientation.
So what does? Choice or environment are the only two answers readily available.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Several twin studies have been cited in this thread, ranging from ~25-70% correlation. I've never seen a survey of the general populace that have had >10% homosexuality. This means that there is something special about twins that makes it more likely that a pair of twins will be homosexual than a pair random people.
Now, that means that homosexuality must be environmental (environmental doesn't necessarily imply personal choice) or genetic or both. You said it yourself, genes don't determine behavior, they only give an inclination towards certain behaviors. Therefore we can't rule genetics out, just because there isn't a 100% correlation. I don't have any information myself that indicates which option is correct, so I'll trust what I've heard from scientists, and say that it's a combination of both.
Also, the less correlation, the more likely it is that choice is a factor. If it's a genetic or environmental determined trait, then twins would have a higher correlation, because they exist in similiar environments and have identical genes. If it's a choice issue, then twins would have a low correlation, since each is making a choice not based upon their environment or genetics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either way, I have known **** men who have turned straight. So, I trust my experience over the APA's findings. They claim change isn't possible and that's just downright misleading.
You can change your sexual orientation because it's a choice or a habit. It isn't set in stone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were they truly **** before, or did they get pressured into it for some reason? Are they truly straight now, are they fooling themselves or you, or are they celibate? No offense, but I'll trust the APA's scientific evidence more than your anecdotal evidence.
Also, I found out a little bit more about the APA's switch in the 1970s. This is from their official page about resolutions regarding homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. The American Psychological Association supports the action taken on December 15, 1973, by the American Psychiatric Association, removing homosexuality from that Association's official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association therefore adopts the following resolution:
<b>Homosexuality, per se, implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities</b>:
Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of metal illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.
2. Regarding discrimination against homosexuals, the American Psychological Association adopts the following resolution concerning their civil and legal rights:
The American Psychological Association deplores all public and private discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing against those who engage in or who have engaged in homosexual activities and declares that no burden of proof of such judgement, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon these individuals greater than that imposed on any other persons. Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer citizens who engage in acts of homosexuality the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. (1975)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard from psychiatrists that the official definition of a mental illness requires that it significantly impairs that person that has it. It makes sense that homosexuality wouldn't be regarded as a mental illness, because it doesn't impair you in the ways mentioned above.
I have no homosexual tendencies <i>that I am aware of.</i> How do I find out? Now, perhaps I AM one of those rare few entirely hetero people, but it's rather unlikely according to this scale, isn't it? Maybe I am suppressing some homosexual tendencies (subconsciously, since it's not something I'm aware of). But how do I find out?
On the Kinsey scale, I am most likely one of these:
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
How do I come to a conclusion in this matter? How do I find out where I stand? I'm not about to start a romantic relationship with another man just to find out.
On another note, I find some of the argumentation for that scale inherently flawed:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, from this we can deduct a variety of things:
Sheep and goats as such do not exist. Almost any animal you encounter that looks like a sheep or a goat will actually be a mixture of the two.
We are not born with four limbs, but with somewhere between zero and eight. The prevalence of people with two arms and two legs that you might have noticed is entirely coincidental.
We are all hermaphrodites.
As you can see, I very much take issue with that argumentation. Nature quite often deals with discrete categories it seems, particularly when we are talking gender. If gender is so highly polarized, why not sexual preference?
. Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility.
<!--QuoteBegin-Athena+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, their <i>opinions</i> are most likely biased...although you can make the same accusation against most other groups with a stake in the matter, including the APA. However, that doesn't autmatically invalidate their scientific studies, which still have plenty of credibility. And the studies are referenced and cited in that article, so you can see exactly where they got their data from.
. Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using himself as any sort of a reference even just to promote is own book is indeed hurting credibility. You must have not done many papers that required research.
If you were to turn do a paper on say sunblock for your senior year in highschool, and enjoyed it enought to re-do a paper in college the professor would laugh at you if you cited yourself as a reference. Same applies here.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Athena+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I'm going to say is that you're quoting NARTH. The "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." The name of the organization should already give you an indication of how biased of a site you're reading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, their <i>opinions</i> are most likely biased...although you can make the same accusation against most other groups with a stake in the matter, including the APA. However, that doesn't autmatically invalidate their scientific studies, which still have plenty of credibility. And the studies are referenced and cited in that article, so you can see exactly where they got their data from.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Calling the APA biased is calling the cauldron black.
<!--QuoteBegin-APA website+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (APA website)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Who We Are
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
150,000 members... I'd say thats quite a bit more impressive then anything NARTH has. Not to mention they federal government agrees with their decisions concerning diseases of the mind. Yeah... so biased.
Even the national geographic agrees that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior. As documented <a href='http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html' target='_blank'>here</a>
Oh yes, I forgot to mention they are biased [/sarcasm]
A few fun little facts from the article.
<!--QuoteBegin-National Geographic+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (National Geographic)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
July 23, 2004
<b> Date above is important, its a NEW STUDY </b>
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.
On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.
"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. <b> The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural. </b>
In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. And only this month, President Bush vowed to continue his bid to ban **** marriages after the Senate blocked the proposal.
<b> Bush lost... again </b>
For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.
In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.
He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They end by saying they don't know for sure, like any source would if they are not biased. It is occuring in the "natural" world and it always has.
Those that disagree are disllusioned, as this article and this isn't the only one suggests.
One more article because I'm feeling generous, and this one is from the university of wisconsin, so even college students know it is occuring in the natural world.
<a href='http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.****.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml' target='_blank'>Wisconsin article (The Cardinal)</a>
. Whitehead, NE; Whitehead,BK (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Layfayette, Louisiana. See also www.mygenes.co.nz.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also uses himself as a reference... that kind hurts the credibility <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you look at the <i>context</i> in which he quotes himself? He's not throwing some "fact" out there, and supporting it merely with his own word. Rather, he starts the article by saying, "there are studies of identical twins and non-identical twins, and this article will focus on the identical twins, but I have also written about non-identical twin studies and if you care you can look that up in this other thing I wrote". That doesn't actually count as using himself as a reference, and does nothing to hurt his credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using himself as any sort of a reference even just to promote is own book is indeed hurting credibility. You must have not done many papers that required research.
If you were to turn do a paper on say sunblock for your senior year in highschool, and enjoyed it enought to re-do a paper in college the professor would laugh at you if you cited yourself as a reference. Same applies here.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose professors shouldn't be allowed to use their own self-authored books as references for the classes they teach... (hurts credibility).
Statements like this are par for the course for you... just because you disagree with a point of view doesn't make it non-credible.
Your lack of logic and reasoning in this situation confuses and frightens me.