Defending the Truth

they are hardly red herrings - they are called EQUAL GOVERNMENT PROTECTIONS

you've had all these answered and/or refuted before

I'm not repeating myself again for you

I'm quite respectful to you and I think I always have been. I disagree with you, though. And I don't understand what it is that makes people think that the gay activists are trying to get special treatment. They are seeking to be treated the same as straight people in the eyes of the law and in the protection afforded to us in the Constitution, and that is for all of us, not just men, or whites, or straights, or whatever. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with their morality as long as they are not victimising anyone.

there is. but it is entirely informed by religious dogma. fiocus on the family is hardly rigorous science.

there is no mainstream scientific literature that argues homosexuality is an illness or abnormality. there is plenty of literature that argues it has a biological origin, that the phenomena is advantageous, that it is entirely normal and healthy for those who are gay and entirely normal and healthy for their families and society.

as i said at the beginning of the thread, the major argument against recognition of gay relationships is to say they are abnormal relationships held by abnormal people. this is false. so stop saying it.

the literature i have presented here is a broad selection from numerous unrelated and international sources. it is not the official line of the APA or any other group, it is not a grand conspiracy of gay activists, it is not subject to censorship or any other editing other than that required to confirm facts. the opinion that homosexuality is healthy and normal is held by people working in the field universally. it is their opinion because it is the only intelligent way to interpret the evidence.

the other argument against gay relationships is that they are against God. this is why the literature that argues for reparative therapy and against gay marriage is headed by church affiliated groups like focus on the family. they are pushing their religious ideology and trying to dress it up as science. they are entitled to voice their opinion like everyone else, but they need to start being honest and admit that their opinion is based on their interpretation of the bible, not the evidence.

Quote:

So how can you explain all the homosexuals who have been cured of their homosexuality and are now able to lead normal lives?

It's called perpetrating a fraud.

fxashun

i said that you will need access to a library with an institutional subscription to access these. i am guessing you do not have such access. but still feel able to argue with those people who do.

nobody is suggesting you are supposed to be gay. all mammalian populations have variety, it is essential to their survival. straight is the most common variety of sexuality in the human species. it is your variety and it is healthy. but the other varieties are equally healthy and although they may be less common, they are no less normal.

nobody is suggesting you are supposed to be white. all mammalian populations have variety, it is essential to their survival. pale skin is the most common variety of skin tone. it is my variety, and it is healthy. but the other varieties are equally healthy and although they may be less common, they are no less normal.

just makes then f**ked up, right?

i don't argue. but vitiligo is abberant when compared to how that individual should be on the basis of their physiology, genetics and evolution. homosexuality is totally normal when compared to the individual.

yes they do. read them. oh, you cannot. ok, try listening to those people who have read them then. wait a minute, they disagree with you !!

which is what some of them do. you are fishing for a reason to disregard the evidence.

this reference was included to illustrate the fact that sexuality is far more complex than you would think. and that sexual behaviour is about more than reproduction. also, it is well recognised in the life sciences that very closely related species frequently share lots of features. it is not proof by any means, but suggestive. the sexuality of one primate species is likely to be similar to the sexuality of a close biological relative. we are very similar (although not identical) to bonobos in almost every way, why not sexually?