View Single Post
Old 05-28-2008, 07:39 AM   #110 (permalink)
fxashun
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,469
Country:
Points: 30,264, Level: 100
Points: 30,264, Level: 100 Points: 30,264, Level: 100 Points: 30,264, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
fxashun is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
these links relate to the nature of the relationship, as was mentioned. they do not and are not supposed to discuss the issue of evolution or biological underpinnings. but they do discuss the notion that the nature of the relationship is not different to the nature of heterosexual relationships. they discuss that what differences there are primarily relate to social and legal differences (such as the lack of the right to marry) and not to a flaw in the way gays relate to each other.
I don't think there are flaws in the homosexual relationship. Never have doubted the feelings and emotions involved between two homosexuals. I think the drive that creates those feelings is dysfunctional and the relationships are just a workaround to that fundamental defect.
As much as modern media would like to portray it, not every pedophillic relationship is prone to dysfunction. Many societies have had those that practiced it. But just as with anything, the negative ones get all the attention because the ones that work make people uncomfortable. Homosexuality has passed through a period of being viewed like that.

Quote:
if homosexual relationships were "f**ked up" we would expect the dynamics of the relatinship to be abnormal, but we do not see that. we see normal healthy relationships, consistent with normal healthy people
Not necessarily. I don't expect the dynamics to be normal. It's just coincidental that gay people "get along" in their relationships. It's like male promiscuity and male homosexuality go hand in hand. When you look at the rates of actual marriage, the numbers of gay women that marry and gay men are almost even if not more leaning toward the women. Even though there are at least twice as many gay men. The stereotype of gay male promiscuity plays true in disease rates and the number of them that REALLY commit to each other.

Quote:
yes, social and political. psychologists advocacy that same sex relationships deserve legal and formal recognition matching heterosexual relationships. nothing here about them needing reparative therapy, which you would expect if they thought being gay was an abnormality. seems psychologists think being gay is as good as being straignt.
You can't "fix" gay. I have never advocated for reparative therapy. That's Gary's argument. I think sexual orientation is innate. Hetero, homo, zoophie, and pedo are all pretty much hardwired into a person. You are debating something I've never addressed. We've already discussed how the medical profession came to the decision that "gay" was normal. Your "seems psychologists think being gay is as good as being straignt" assumes they all think this, and we both know that's not true.

Quote:
non conformists are always picked on more. the literature often suggests that gays have higher rates of depression and anxiety, which is used as evidence that they are intrinsicaly sick. but bullied kids always have higher rates of depression and anxiety. this particular argument that the gay brain is flawed is misleading.
That's another argument I have never made. There are very successful humans of all sexual persuasion. Not to mention successful humans with any number of serious mental maladies. I've never said that gay people are intrinsically anything but attracted to their own gender. Which is aberrant for humans. Any other problem that they might have is just coincidental. Even if a pedophile is a gifted [insert profession here] that doesn't mean that pedophilia is normal. His defining problem is pedo, any other issues he might have should be evaluated on their own.

Quote:
these discuss the nature of attraction. straight men are attracted to images and scents of women. straight women attracted to images and scents of men. gay men attracted to images and scents of men, just like women are. also, straight men respond to arousal from women in a specific and appropriate way, gay men respond to arousal from men in the same specific and appropriate way. perhaps not surprising.
It's not. Makes perfect sense. But that doesn't say anything other than the attractions are crossed. We have humans that have gender crossed mental perspectives and physiology, so a gay person being attracted to their own gender doesn't really prove anything in the BIG picture.

Quote:
actually, this is highly suggestive. it suggests that the nature of the attraction that gays have is normal. the nature of their orientation and their responses are the same as straight people. once again, if they were f**ked up, we would expect their responses to be f**ked up. at a chemical and neurological level, gays are normal.
You would only expect that if you were looking for reasons to be positive about homosexuality. But from a neutral point if view, it just is what it is. But again, we have humans that are attracted to other species and children that we consider aberrant. And f'd up. And even with the social stigma that they suffer, many of them are successful and productive members of society. F'd up sexual drives don't automatically equate to f'd up chemical and neurological profiles. Just different ones that supports their f'd up situation.

Quote:
finally.
of course you have not seen it all. you have missed the stuff on evolution. you have also said there is nothing i posted about evolution.
No what I said was why don't you pick out the ones that matter so I won't have to read every hit from your search. So far, you haven't presented anything but stuff that looks at homosexuality and tries to justify it. Not interested, that's just rationalizing. Not to mention most of that stuff is just crap. So instead of me buying a bag full of corn with the husk on, why don't you clean it all off and sell me some nicely trimmed already cleaned ears?

Quote:
the removal of homosexuality as an illness, growing recognition of same sex relationships, spreading recognition of gay marriages, these are not front page news? these changes are driven by this research.
Not really. Public opinion is driven by comfort and familiarity. removal of homosexuality as an illness was driven by a vote, a vote by people with an obvious political agenda. There is no real science presented that takes homosexuality as a human evolved trait from need to evolution of facilitation for both genders. All the science that you have presented are all individual rationalistic viewpoints. If you can show me something that can concisely explain homosexuality and it's components as can be done for heterosexuality from it's reproductive need, to it's male and female evolved complementation, to the care of the resulting offspring through behaviors and physiology, you'll have impressed me. Until then homosexuality is just another one of the myriad things that can be wrong with living things.

Quote:
Very good. do you realise this is the first time you have actually debated?
WOW, and you almost made it through an entire post without showing your weakness and talking about "me". But just couldn't quite make it I see. How trite.
This is my new signature.

Last edited by fxashun; 05-28-2008 at 08:00 AM.