Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[dagwoman]

Well said, minka.

 

[skip89]

A disease is any factor which affects the body's normal condition. The reproductive organs are for reproduction. Therefore if a chemical imbalance entices behaviour to the contrary, then why isn't that a disease, seeing as it impairs normal function?

 

[poloktim]

A disease is any factor which affects the body's normal condition. The reproductive organs are for reproduction. Therefore if a chemical imbalance entices behaviour to the contrary, then why isn't that a disease, seeing as it impairs normal function?

You'd have to ask the medical professionals who removed homosexuality from the disease list.

 

[bshoc]

Highlighting negative exceptions does not create grounds for permitting further negative exceptions, this is true, however outlining negative exceptions does permit one to challenge your definition of marriage as a concept surrounding nothing but procreation.

Sure, but not in any way acting on it, you admitted it yourself in your first sentence.

I'd also outline what I stated earlier, that the state could introduce regulations which would enforce procreation (such as statutory declaration of intent to reproduce and non-issue of marriage licences to the aged) which would not tax our resources whatsoever to practice. This would make marriage a procreative process in reality, and create further incentive to reproduce and have children within the nuclear model - things that you believe promote economic growth and correct values. However there is no legislation for this in any country, nor any move for anything resembling such legislation. Therefore it is logical to assume that no governmental authority considers these as negative exceptions to marriage itself, in spite of the introduction of incentives for reproduction which are enacted irrespective of one's own married status.

It would cost money if you actually want to enforce such a statutory declaration, why bother writing in laws if we're not going to even bother trying to enforce them? Lets save some trees eh?

So you do not care if people marry who can't reproduce so long as they're straight? Doesn't that defeat the point of most of your argument?

Well there's a difference between my opinion and the way I'm trying to argue this, although I admit one does commonly slip into the other from time to time, but no it doesen't really matter, enough taxpayer money goes down the drain on useless programs as it is, thusfar the marriage institution yields the needed results in terms of children, and if it aint broke, dont fix it.

 

[gerhard]

not a mental disease because theres no convergent validity with other diseases.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

 

[bshoc]

Artificial insemination is no less safe than sexual intercourse.

Yeah because freezing sperm cells, that are meant to pass between bodies in a few seconds, in liquid nitrogen vats for weeks, months and years isn't going to lead to gene damage and quality reduction ... right

Gay parents are just as capable of raising children as straight people.

No such thing as "gay parents" , unless you can show me an instance when a woman got another woman pregnant, or when a man got another man pregnant LOL

As many people pointed out in this thread already, if nature intended gays to have children, they would be granted the necessary biological features.

It's obvious straight people aren't any better at parenting, and children of gay parents are just as well adjusted and happy as children of straight parents. And they're more likely to be accepting of other people for who they are and respecting that, a quality you clearly don't have.

Straight people are the best at parenting, since they are the only ones actually capable of it, there is absolutely no better parenting structure than the nuclear family, becuase thats what nature intended, even children with separated parents have both a mom and dad.

And dont start with me on acceptance, the minority radical left has little tolerance for any other viewpoint other than their own.

 

[bshoc]

not a mental disease because theres no convergent validity with other diseases.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Never rule out agenda opinion, I know for a fact many of the medical organisations have been or are infiltrated by gays, and thus their agenda.

 

[_dhj_]

Never rule out agenda opinion, I know for a fact many of the medical organisations have been or are infiltrated by gays, and thus their agenda.

Lol. That's a good one.

 

[bshoc]

Lol. That's a good one.

Kerryn Phelps was in charge of the AMA not too long ago ...

 

[_dhj_]

Kerryn Phelps was in charge of the AMA not too long ago ...

The way you put it was rather amusing.

I'm actually of the view that homosexuality is probably a "disease", albeit an incureable one. That does not mean that we should treat them as second-class citizens however, just as we shouldn't treat people born with any disease any differently.

 

[bshoc]

The way you put it was rather amusing.

"I'm actually of the view that homosexuality is probably a "disease", albeit an incureable one. That does not mean that we should treat them as second-class citizens however, just as we shouldn't treat people born with any disease any differently.

I agree, but I disagree that its incurable, if the US's top psychologists are to be believed ..

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rk67865783602411/?p=7699b78a6e834ff1886af0bb33b6a227&pi=1

Robert L. Spitzer

"Abstract Position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States state that there is no scientific evidence that a homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy, often referred to as reparative therapy. This study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual can, with some form of reparative therapy, become predominantly heterosexual. The participants were 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) who reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years. They were interviewed by telephone, using a structured interview that assessed same sex attraction, fantasy, yearning, and overt homosexual behavior. On all measures, the year prior to the therapy was compared to the year before the interview. The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year. Reports of complete change were uncommon. Female participants reported significantly more change than did male participants. Either some gay men and lesbians, following reparative therapy, actually change their predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation or some gay men and women construct elaborate self-deceptive narratives (or even lie) in which they claim to have changed their sexual orientation, or both. For many reasons, it is concluded that the participants' self-reports were, by-and-large, credible and that few elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians."

Remember this is Dr Robert Spitzer. The same Spitzer whose reforming zeal helped delete homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental disorders back in 1973 ...

 

[gerhard]

bshoc this isnt about opinion this is about fact. there are no correlates between other mental illnesses and homosexuality (gonsiorek 1982). this is a precondition for being a mental illness. therefore, no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a mental illness

 

[gerhard]

omg dhj why side with bshoc for jesus christ

 

[_dhj_]

I'm not sure if it's actually cureable but it certainly wouldn't be worth putting too much effort into it.

 

[dieburndie]

I don't think homosexuality is a disease, I just think they all have a disease called AIDS.

As many people pointed out in this thread already, if nature intended gays to have children, they would be granted the necessary biological features.

That shit doesn't cut it any more. Do most humans live only directly as nature intended, given that nature has intentions?
Homosexuals aren't the only ones who violate your definition of what is natural.

 

[_dhj_]

omg dhj why side with bshoc for jesus christ

I'm only expressing my views and if they happen to be similar with that of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so be it.

 

[withoutaface]

Well if I could and wanted to get pregnant, I would at least take the step of concieving the child in the safest way, if you're not willing to do that, you're not really ready to have a child.

I'm by no means suggesting that it be done, gays shouldn't have children period, and if they do, the state should intervene and take them away, and possibly send the gays to prison for a few years for legal violations.

So if my wife's infertile except via IVF, it's best that I knock up the next door neighbour then take the baby?

 

[dieburndie]

I'm only expressing my views and if they happen to be similar with that of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so be it.

Stop defending yourself, what you did was wrong.

 

[_dhj_]

Stop defending yourself, what you did was wrong.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

 

[bshoc]

So if my wife's infertile except via IVF, it's best that I knock up the next door neighbour then take the baby?

If there is not other choice, then IVF is the last resort, afterall the child will have a proper father since IVF is just out of the womb fertilisation