Defending the Truth

Just as your earlier "evidence" only looked at homosexuality after the fact and with no basis. Your "evidence" here only looks at pedophilia. No one here says that homosexuality and pedophilia are just the same. The differences between the two are obvious. But so is the difference between homosexuality and left handedness, race, and red hair. Yet we see those comparisons made as well. So don't get so indignant when the logical similarities between two biologically similar actual sexual urges are compared. The differences between the two as it relates to sexual orientation are slight at best. Especially when you remove the reproductive and physiologic aspects of sex. Something you have to do to even begin to consider an innate urge to copulate with a same gendered person is normal.

There are many accounts of what happens from both sides of the debate. But the fact remains that there was a vote, and obviously the evidence at that time was barely enough to convince the actual members of the APA. And since this IS a scientific organization and not a political one, "getting to know a gay person" is sorry ass justification to change scientific constants.

I'd really like to see where they got both of those "90%" numbers.

yes. the articles at the beginning of this thread represent a small selection of it. and there are 9000 or so others when you have read those ones.

the evidence is here on this thread. you have it, and garysher has had this answer repeatedly, although he has the sense to ignore it. presumably because he recognises it shoots down most of what he likes to say.

I agree. It's just misdirected. A "intersexed" person's male feelings are the same as mine, they just have crossed genitalia. With all the defects in humans, especially as it relates to gender and sex, homosexuality isn't all that hard to fathom.

You asked..
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
I was simply pointing out that pedophiles are capable of having relationships if they are allowed. Obviously not every pedophile actually physically abuses their "partner". I guess that explains your abbreviated quote of that part of my post.
Just as soon as you point me to some bonafide evidence that homosexuality is a evolved human trait. In a way that goes full circle like heterosexuality, respiration, digestion, and circulation..

That's because you obviously didn't read what I wrote in it's entirety as it relates to what you typed. But again, I said a lot more than what you quoted.

Really? What is the aberrant profile? Who were the subjects. Was it questionable sources like early homosexual studies that only looked at incarcerated pedophiles? I'd like to see that research. Because I've read a study that said that it is possible that many men have at least unconscious attraction to youth. But then again, like with homosexuality, "research" is all over the place. If at all.

Not in all cases. A male with female reactions to men isn't normal. It may be for a gay man, but that's not normal. But if you apply that same relativistic approach to pedo, you still come up with brain activity that is normal for pedo, just not normal for humans.

I disagree. I don't think you read a single one. And this post doesn't point me at a single relevant one from that list. Which should be easy with "hundreds" to choose from. The silence is as deafening as your lack of real links to those generic non-descript articles.

They are.

Not too much, just a lot of useless links with no reason why they were included. And when I read some of them, they said nothing of any use to my argument. It's like showing a picture of Jupiter when I looking for Mars.

That's how I think of you. I don't know you. Just another group of words to reply to. No big deal.

Debate the topic, not the person.

fxashun:

i am not sure what sort of evidence you are really looking for. the evidence available to you is enough to convince most people who have seen it. it is comparable to the evidence that women are as intelligent as men, or that dinosaurs once walked the earth. it is presented in the same forums, by people with the same level of experience and training. you can choose to ignore it, but you cannot claim it is worthless.

as that was the point i was trying to make.

actually, that has been said many times.

not so obvious that you have compared them directly countless times.

people make those comparisons to show how ludicrous they are. they are an example of what sort of flawed conclusions you can come to if you make narrow comparisons based on the superficial. and they are made to illustrate that social norms can be and have been interpreted as biological truths.

you, however, do the opposite. you have made the comparison between paedophilia and homosexuality because you believe them to be very similar.

i am not. i am letting you know that the actual sexual urges are biologically different. they look similar but only if you refuse to look in any detail. leopards and cheetas look similar too, but nobody would suggest they are the same, they are different in many ways. as are paedophiles and gays.

the differences are fundamental. the differences relate to which drives, urges, cognitive processes, emotions are activated or supressed during arousal. slight ?

not really, not if you have the time and inclination to look beyond genitals. but i think we might have come full circle. i feel i am repeating myself. and i think you are too.

I've told you what evidence I am looking for several times. Show me "why" a person can be gay yet oppose human physiology. Show me how gay is an evolved human trait as completely as how humans respirate oxygen and digest sustenance. Studying behavior and rationalizing based on that isn't evidence, it's just observing a defect and finding a way to make it fit a preconceived idea.

Why would you take this sentence out all by itself? This says nothing without the sentences around it. What?

Where? Where has someone said that homosexuality and pedophilia are exactly the same. Just as with the left handed and racial analogies, it is assumed the person in the discussion is intelligent enough to understand the similarities. In fact I have repeated the similarities here and clarified the similarities. The fact that you are still making that lame assertion is sad.

They do compare directly. They are both sterile, physiologically challenged, and have no real evolved purpose of facilitation. Not much biologically separates them. I repeat.

I don't use social norms. Homosexuality will be aberrant regardless of it's social standing.

They are. Biologically they are VERY similar.


But they are both felines just as all sexual orientations, hetero included are sexual urges. Only one of which is normal for humans. Other defect simply exist along side them. Just as mentally retarded person is still a human, just a human with a defect.

Not really. We just know that they have a different reaction to stimuli. THAT is their defect. Just as a male reacting to another male as a female would is THEIR defect. You are showing just how you have rationalized a way to think about homosexuality as "normal" not realizing that that same argument can be used for any f'd up mental situation.
That's the problem with rationalizing, once you start, any further limitations can also be rationalized away.

Homosexuality is f'd up before genetalia even come into play. It's f'd up to want to have sex with a member of the same gender, another species, or a child before any sexual activity takes place.

And yes, this is repeated. Especially the parts about the similarities of pedo and gay.

nor has anyone decided that those with strong religious convictions should be the arbiter of our moral values.

psychologists and psychiatrists are human. like all humans they are predominantly religious, most of my colleagues profess a christian faith, although there are growing numbers of muslim medical people in australia. as professionals, they do not let their religion guide their understanding of evidence.

garysher, you are sounding increasingly like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. our agenda, to destroy the fabric of civilization as we know it, starting by allowing gay marraige, infiltrating the ranks of universities and professional organisations with our spies, silencing dissent, killing God, with the aim to control the world !!!

the APA has not tried to impose morality on you. they have accepted the weight of evidence that illustrates homosexuality as a variation of normal healthy human sexuality. they have accepted that there is nothing wrong with it, that it fits well into our understanding of humanity in every field from sociology to evolution. of interest, the WHO, AMA, and every other professional organisation in the world have also accepted the same evidence in the same light. nobody is imposing anything. quite the opposite, they are recognising that past impositions and restrictions were unfair as they were no more than social prejudices dressed up as science.

what you do with this information is up to you. your morality is your decision.

And yet not a single one of those organizations has any concrete information as to "why" they accept this as fact. All we have are a pile of unproven unrepeatable theories. Still sounds like political agenda bullshit to me. Kinda like where you yourself said that some of the scientists "got to know a gay person". That's not science.

And Christianity isn't the only religion with tenets against homosexual behavior. It was pretty much a worldwide fact among every country until rather recently in history. It's an aberration to the species, not the religious.