Thread: Discussion of Homosexuality Acceptance (Split)

Originally Posted by Shamanite

Will we accept pedophiles or beastophiles?

No. Legislation relating to the interactions of individuals outside of "traditional" bounds (ex. heterosexual couples), specifically with regard to intimate relationships, should (and likely will) define legal relationships/interactions as occurring between informed, consenting adults. A child or a non-human animal are not considered to be informed actors, so they can't reasonably consent to, say, having sex.

Your mention of pedophiles reminds me of this quote from James Cantor: "One cannot choose to not be a pedophile, but one can choose to not be a child molester."

Again, marriage was traditionally defined as between a man and a woman, but with gay marriage that has been redefined, the rules have been changed as well. Laws represent a reflection of the morality of the public. As we constantly change our morals in this fast moving period of history, so will our laws. In the future the same rhetoric will be able to use for any new movement,

"why are you pedophobic? You should be accepting of pedophilic people" etc.

The logic for what age you can give consent is a man made "social construct" as well. And will easily be changed in a debate very similar to the gay rights movement. I am in no way approving of pedophilia I am using it to show an example of why the logic and rhetoric to change the laws for all these movements is based on logical fallacies. It should be based on facts and statistical data, or traditional morals.

Originally Posted by Shamanite

Again, marriage was traditionally defined as between a man and a woman, but with gay marriage that has been redefined, the rules have been changed as well. Laws represent a reflection of the morality of the public. As we constantly change our morals in this fast moving period of history, so will our laws. In the future the same rhetoric will be able to use for any new movement,

"why are you pedophobic? You should be accepting of pedophilic people" etc.

The logic for what age you can give consent is a man made "social construct" as well. And will easily be changed in a debate very similar to the gay rights movement. I am in no way approving of pedophilia I am using it to show an example of why the logic and rhetoric to change the laws for all these movements is based on logical fallacies. It should be based on facts and statistical data, or traditional morals.

But they're not based in fallacious logic. If anything, the increasing widespread acceptance of homosexuals, transgenders, and even pedophiles is a sign of our improved understanding of human psychology and what people CAN choose about themselves and what they cannot. My use of the James Cantor quote was an example: if a person cannot choose what or who they are attracted to, why is it right that we should, say, shame them, or try to deny them the full rights the rest of us enjoy? Obviously pedophilia is an extreme example; they are attracted to children. That in itself is not a problem, but their actions in satisfying that attraction are.

I agree that our consideration of our fellow humans with varied sexual orientations should be based on facts, but certainly not traditional morals. The argument from tradition is the thing that is based in fallacious logic. They used that argument to try to make interracial marriage seem bad, even unnatural.

Redefining our terms is not necessarily a bad thing.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

But they're not based in fallacious logic. If anything, the increasing widespread acceptance of homosexuals, transgenders, and even pedophiles is a sign of our improved understanding of human psychology and what people CAN choose about themselves and what they cannot. My use of the James Cantor quote was an example: if a person cannot choose what or who they are attracted to, why is it right that we should, say, shame them, or try to deny them the full rights the rest of us enjoy? Obviously pedophilia is an extreme example; they are attracted to children. That in itself is not a problem, but their actions in satisfying that attraction are.

I agree that our consideration of our fellow humans with varied sexual orientations should be based on facts, but certainly not traditional morals. The argument from tradition is the thing that is based in fallacious logic. They used that argument to try to make interracial marriage seem bad, even unnatural.

Redefining our terms is not necessarily a bad thing.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

Also might I draw your attention to some studies and statistics.

1. Gay men are 44 times more likely to have HIV http://www.gmhc.org/news-and-events/...ely-to-get-hiv

Promiscuity

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Having homosexuality as a positive alternative to heterosexuality in society does not make it better but leads to social and moral decay. It also leads to a massive spread of STD's

The year is 2014.


>:/

The time is 7:35

Sorry, just poking a little fun at that non-response. It seems like you assume Shamanite is a bigot. Is he? I don't know - I can't tell from what he just wrote. But it always kills me when people use that argument - about how modern we are at this moment in time. You do realize people have always done that, right? How silly it is today to imagine "Come on, get with the times man!! It's freaking 1432!!!"

And let me add, before anybody blasts me - I do support gay rights!! Absolutely!! They have every right to marry just as much as anybody else and it's incredibly stupid to think otherwise, motivated mostly by religious beliefs. However that doesn't invalidate statistics (assuming the statistics are accurate, I haven't fact-checked).

I'd like to see Dr. Dickey's sources (he's the guy whose words you copied and pasted word-for-word), because when I look up the history of homosexuality's removal from the DSM's, they all mention studies that influenced the APA's decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM's. It is not a simple case of pure political activism motivating the APA to change the DSM.

His claim that "[t]here was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated." is simply wrong; the Hooker study from 1957 suggested homosexuality is not inherently psychopathological. Those results have been replicated since then. There are studies published pre-1970 that agree with studies published in recent years, so Dickey's history appears to be incorrect.

And even if homosexuality is a mental disorder, so what? Should we not be accepting of them? Should we not be accepting of those who have ADHD, depression, or anxiety either? What's your point?

I'm wary of your sources about homosexual promiscuity and the spread of STD's, as they all come from Christian organizations. The Exodus Global Alliance seems like a sinister "pray the gay away" organization. I can't trust their objectivity or ability to analyze studies.

But let's suppose their interpretations of the studies are correct (I don't have time to look through their sources at the moment). All that tells us is that we need to teach homosexuals the importance of practicing safe sex. That's about it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'd like to see Dr. Dickey's sources (he's the guy whose words you copied and pasted word-for-word), because when I look up the history of homosexuality's removal from the DSM's, they all mention studies that influenced the APA's decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM's. It is not a simple case of pure political activism motivating the APA to change the DSM.

His claim that "[t]here was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated." is simply wrong; the Hooker study from 1957 suggested homosexuality is not inherently psychopathological. Those results have been replicated since then. There are studies published pre-1970 that agree with studies published in recent years, so Dickey's history appears to be incorrect.

And even if homosexuality is a mental disorder, so what? Should we not be accepting of them? Should we not be accepting of those who have ADHD, depression, or anxiety either? What's your point?

I'm wary of your sources about homosexual promiscuity and the spread of STD's, as they all come from Christian organizations. The Exodus Global Alliance seems like a sinister "pray the gay away" organization. I can't trust their objectivity or ability to analyze studies.

But let's suppose their interpretations of the studies are correct (I don't have time to look through their sources at the moment). All that tells us is that we need to teach homosexuals the importance of practicing safe sex. That's about it.

Well as you are pulling quotes from the University of California, Davis.. You are not allowed to have conservative viewpoints at universities, you are not allowed to teach certain parts of anthropology (differences between races) and you are not allowed to speak against homosexuality without usually getting fired. The jewish/marxist control on the university promotes homosexuality, they know its bad yet they do it anyways because they hate traditional western culture.

Anyways, however you define mental illness, MSM (men who have sex with men) are at a higher risk for depression, anxiety, substance and alcohol abuse. And no, the study was conducted in multiple countries and "tolerance" plays no role in elevating these effects. So to me it seems like it may be a mental illness.

Source: http://i.imgur.com/Gj7gFM2.jpg

It doesn't matter who the source comes from, if its right, its right. If its wrong, its wrong.

As for the hooker study, I found how they did the study here:

In the 1950's, Dr. Evelyn Hooker studied 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study. Dr. Hooker administered three projective tests, which measure people's patterns of thoughts, attitudes, and emotions--the Rorschach, in which people describe what they see in abstract ink blots, the Thematic Apperception Test [TAT] and the Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test), in which people tell stories about different pictures. Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents' sexual orientation at a level better than chance. A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and heterosexuals did not differ significantly." Based on these findings, Dr. Hooker tentatively suggested that homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals.

So basically all they did was make them look at ink blots and weird pictures and judged their reactions, and asked two independent researchers to try to tell which ones were gay and which ones weren't. This was the BASIS for getting it removed as a mental illness. The sample size was only 30 gay males and 30 straight males. It doesn't sound very conclusive at all.

And you know whats hilarious is how you think Evelyn Hooker is unbiased, this was in her wikipedia bio:

However, during the 1940s, she first became interested in what would turn out to be her life's work. Evelyn was teaching an introductory psychology class in 1944 when a student approached her after class. He identified himself as Sam From; he confided in her that he was gay and so were most of his friends.[5] She realized Sam was one of the brightest students in the class and quickly became friends with him. They would spend time between and after classes to talk and get to know each other. Sam introduced Evelyn to his circle of homosexual friends. They would go to clubs, bars, and parties where Evelyn was able to fraternize with more homosexuals.[5] Sam's closest friends were some of the most intelligent students Evelyn had the pleasure to meet, including Christopher Isherwood and Stephen Spender, a writer and a poet.[3] He challenged her to scientifically study "people like him."[2]

Yes I'm sure she was completely neutral and unbiased, she only spends part of her time making friends at gay bars.

And yet YOU are the one that is weary of MY sources when they are actually done over a much larger sample size and they actually try to get a realistic answer.

I'm not saying we should be hateful, but not to treat it as a positive alternative to heterosexuality. It should be treated as a mental illness.

Hmmm… I don't think it's a mental illness… not that I know much about these things. And I largely agree with Blueline about the conclusions to be drawn from the stats, though not about teaching gays about the dangers of unsafe sexual practices. That sounds about as bad as teaching men not to rape. I suspect it's a certain subgroup among them who are doing that stuff, and they would just laugh at any attempt to educate them. They doubtless already know - it's hard to believe anybody today doesn't understand the dangers of unsafe sex. I suspect the ones who do it get a thrill out of it and out of defying society's expectations and strictures.

Originally Posted by Shamanite

1. Gay men are 44 times more likely to have HIV GMHC | Gay Men 44 Times More Likely To Get HIV

Having homosexuality as a positive alternative to heterosexuality in society does not make it better but leads to social and moral decay. It also leads to a massive spread of STD's

You're more likely to contract disease through anal sex than through vaginal sex. Gay men are also less likely to use condoms because they're not worried about pregnancy. Hence the higher rates of infection among homosexual men.

Having homosexuality as a positive alternative to heterosexuality leads to numerous societal problems

Exhibit A:

1400373659681.jpg

Exhibit B:

1400382586617.jpg

Exhibit C: Censoring and the removal of free speech (He was removed from Firefox for having an opposing viewpoint, even though he created javascript and had major contributions to firefox lol)

1402657493372.jpg

Exhibit D:

1401240663567.jpg

Once again you bring up some good points.

I believe many of todays problems result from too many single parent households. Children need a mother and a father, because of the way the two genders compliment each other. Boys need a male role model, preferably a father, to teach them how to be boys and men - no woman can do that and most seem uninterested in even trying. a mother and a father can balance out each others' more harmful influences - a dad can often save a child from too much feminine influence, and a woman from too much masculine influence. I have never really thought about compounding the problem by having two parents of the same gender, but that does not seem like a good idea. And I'm disgusted by the idea of deliberately feminizing boys under the guise of "letting them make their own choice". By the time they reach puberty they're already too feminized to be able to make a real choice. It's too late if they decide they want to be male, too much of their behavior and tendencies have already been ingrained, and their schoolmates would mock them terribly for suddenly trying too late to act like a boy. Masculinity is something difficult to cultivate, it requires an early start and exposure to masculine men and women who endorse them, not to hostility against masculinity.

I also am disgusted by the idea of men dressed as women going into women's showers and dressing rooms. If they want that privilege then at the very least they need to commit totally - no male genitals should be admitted in there. Probably better to set up a separate area designated for transexuals. If there are separate areas for males and females, and we now have another option (or is it 2 more? Though you don't often hear about women deciding they want to be men) then they should also have separate areas.

The things being said in this thread are incredibly disappointing.

How so?

Should we not have an open and honest discussion about it? Should we all just agree with what media wants us to say? Then there would hardly be any point to the thread being under extended discussion. I'm open to criticism of anything I've said and my mind can be changed if good enough points are made.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

You're more likely to contract disease through anal sex than through vaginal sex. Gay men are also less likely to use condoms because they're not worried about pregnancy. Hence the higher rates of infection among homosexual men.

Thats true, I agree. I feel like you are trying to make a point against me but I don't see how that contradicts anything I'm saying.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The things being said in this thread are incredibly disappointing.

So instead of admitting how biased and skewed your one study was, and dismissing all of my studies without any sort of reason to dismiss them, you just say you're dissappointed?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

How so?

Should we not have an open and honest discussion about it? Should we all just agree with what media wants us to say? Then there would hardly be any point to the thread being under extended discussion. I'm open to criticism of anything I've said and my mind can be changed if good enough points are made.

They can never win with facts and statistics, they always have to resort to censorship(political correctness), claiming the other side is "homophobic". It is what cultural marxism is. An ideology not based in reality but fantasy, it stems from places that do not have to think rationally to survive, like urban areas, and universities where they are able to avoid many of the hardships of reality. Karl Marx never worked a single day in his life and lived off the money of someone else. No wonder he always liked the idea of redistribution of wealth Communism pits man against nature, it is always doomed to fail. The acceptance of homosexuality is just one pillar of egalitarianism to culturally appropriate a country for marxist socialism or Communsim.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The time is 7:35

Sorry, just poking a little fun at that non-response.

Uh, I didn't think my logic was that hard to follow.

Listen, that whole wall of text up there that gay guys are horny have sex with a 1000 partners, is based off the 70s. Guess what, everyone back then was sexing up with every other person. Not just gays. EVERYONE.

Dance clubs were basically sex clubs. Free sex left and right. Why? Because Americans just came out of the hippie freesex mindset and didn't know about STDs and AIDs.

It wasn't until the 80s when AIDs become forefront and center that the culture of free sex radically changed, for EVERYONE, gays and straights. In other words, that wall of text, is no longer relevant as an argument against such gay rights.

(This history lesson is pointless and shouldn't even have been necessary.)

Thank you for explaining that. Unfortunately such an ambiguous post, while sounding nice and pithy, can be very misleading if not explained. Do you have any statistics showing that people are having less sex now than in the 70's? I keep hearing the opposite, that thanks to feminism women in general are a lot more promiscuous now, and of course men are happy to oblige them. But I realize that doesn't impact gays (males anyway), and I know very little about that subject. So I suppose some updated statistics would go far to clear this up.

Really I shouldn't have even taken part in the debate - any ideas or opinions I have are merely my first thoughts, with no research or knowledge, and I really have little interest in the subject. I definitely have no interest in being an activist for or against anything, but I do like to stand up against political correctness where I see it uncontested.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

How so?

Should we not have an open and honest discussion about it? Should we all just agree with what media wants us to say? Then there would hardly be any point to the thread being under extended discussion. I'm open to criticism of anything I've said and my mind can be changed if good enough points are made.

It's just that the overwhelming majority of organizations dedicated to studying the effects of parenting and child development agree that homosexual parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting. Your post about children "needing" separate, heterosexual male and female parents to develop properly or happily is at odds with scientific consensus.

Well, I don't have any statistics, and I don't know how they arrived at those results, all I can talk about is experience. For all we know those might have been feminist-sponsored studies. Being raised by essentially a man-hating feminist I know my life would be different if my father had stuck around to defend me from her ideology and to socialize me into proper male behavior. Of course I can't say, even if he did stick around, that it would have been a happy functional family - it probably wouldn't. But I would have been grateful for at least a few more years of coaching in how boys are supposed to act. I wouldn't have been so ostracized all through school, would have learned to stand up for myself. My mom taught my sister and me that if we're being picked on by someone the thing to do is to just walk away. That might work for a girl, but you know what it does for a boy? Years and years of teasing. Unfortunately you go through school with mostly the same group of people until you graduate high school, assuming you don't move. It took until well into adulthood for me to really understand that I was raised according to a bizarre ideology. God, if only somebody had taught me when I was young that bullies will mostly back down when stood up to, or that bruises and even broken bones heal but shame never does, and that even if you get your ass kicked, you'll be respected by everybody. Men teach these things, not women. And not feminized men, at least in many cases. And I put up with a lot of teasing also from male family members at holiday get-togethers for my long hair and the way my mom dressed me (it wasn't completely gender-free or anything, but close enough to get me mocked). And for my childhood and adolescence and a few years beyond I just believed my mom, that we were living the 'right' way. and that they were all just stupid old-fashioned barbarians. I even felt proud about it. But later in life I came to realize it was actually the source of a lot of my problems.

But of course you can't go back and change things. And while I would like to make a stand for a child's right to be raised in a more positive way, I realize like I said that even a nuclear family doesn't ensure that - no kids have rights. They can't choose who their family is, whether they get circumcised or not, what religion they'll be brought up in etc. They just have to try to survive childhood and hope to come out of it relatively (no pun intended) unscathed. And of course I guess a kid being raised by a same-sex couple is probably better than never getting adopted at all and becoming a ward of the state, in and out of foster homes.

Originally Posted by Shamanite

Thats true, I agree. I feel like you are trying to make a point against me but I don't see how that contradicts anything I'm saying.

It wasn't meant to contradict, just to clarify. You made it sound like homosexual sex makes you more disease-prone, when in fact it's just irresponsibility that makes you more susceptible to venereal disease (regardless of sexual orientation).

In other words, that fun fact you pointed out was of no real importance whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, I don't have any statistics, and I don't know how they arrived at those results, all I can talk about is experience. For all we know those might have been feminist-sponsored studies. Being raised by essentially a man-hating feminist I know my life would be different if my father had stuck around to defend me from her ideology and to socialize me into proper male behavior. Of course I can't say, even if he did stick around, that it would have been a happy functional family - it probably wouldn't. But I would have been grateful for at least a few more years of coaching in how boys are supposed to act. I wouldn't have been so ostracized all through school, would have learned to stand up for myself. My mom taught my sister and me that if we're being picked on by someone the thing to do is to just walk away. That might work for a girl, but you know what it does for a boy? Years and years of teasing. Unfortunately you go through school with mostly the same group of people until you graduate high school, assuming you don't move. It took until well into adulthood for me to really understand that I was raised according to a bizarre ideology. God, if only somebody had taught me when I was young that bullies will mostly back down when stood up to, or that bruises and even broken bones heal but shame never does, and that even if you get your ass kicked, you'll be respected by everybody. Men teach these things, not women. And not feminized men, at least in many cases. And I put up with a lot of teasing also from male family members at holiday get-togethers for my long hair and the way my mom dressed me (it wasn't completely gender-free or anything, but close enough to get me mocked). And for my childhood and adolescence and a few years beyond I just believed my mom, that we were living the 'right' way. and that they were all just stupid old-fashioned barbarians. I even felt proud about it. But later in life I came to realize it was actually the source of a lot of my problems.

But of course you can't go back and change things. And while I would like to make a stand for a child's right to be raised in a more positive way, I realize like I said that even a nuclear family doesn't ensure that - no kids have rights. They can't choose who their family is, whether they get circumcised or not, what religion they'll be brought up in etc. They just have to try to survive childhood and hope to come out of it relatively (no pun intended) unscathed. And of course I guess a kid being raised by a same-sex couple is probably better than never getting adopted at all and becoming a ward of the state, in and out of foster homes.

So in other words, that was an example of poor parenting and hippie dogma. A single-parent household wasn't the problem, feminism wasn't the problem, you're Mom just didn't know what she was doing and you didn't find your own way until much later in your life.

As for masculinity being hard to teach/learn, I disagree; I don't think it's difficult at all to be a man. Develop a certain strength of character, don't compromise on a principal, don't be a punk, defend yourself and others when need be. Boom. It's as simple as that. For bonus points, throw in some superficial stuff like growing a beard or having a gravelly voice.

Dude, don't think you know all about my life because I gave one very abbreviated example. It was a lot more than that one thing - it was a whole pattern. Feminism was absolutely a huge part of the problem, though part of it was also my mom's narcissism. And I don't think I said masculinity is hard to teach or learn, or that isn't really what I meant if I gave that impression. It's hard (maybe impossible?) for a woman to teach though, especially if her ideology is based on a hatred of masculinity. My point was that there needs to be at least one masculine role model in order for a boy to absorb it. Really though I think it's more like a culture, ideally for boys to have a good healthy idea of masculinity they need to be raised in a society that values it, but that also values compassion… in other words not one that overstresses masculinity, or that teaches hyper masculinity. Probably best if his circle includes several men so he can observe the hierarchy in action, see women supporting masculinity and men demonstrating the right and wrong ways to go about it. You know if you become too much of a dick you get beat down or cast out of the group etc. In some paces that culture still exists, but I think it's being largely blotted out, and if feminism has its way it will be a thing of the past.

Even more importantly though, my main point was that a child should have both male and female parents because the two balance each other out and compliment each other in a way that evolved along with the human race. I'm not a fan of the continual insistence from feminism and the rest of the politically correct crowd that biology is unimportant, that everything is just a social construct, and that we can and should freely ignore important parts of biological imperative. I wish we could glimpse the future and see the results of the feminist experiment.

EDIT:

Hey, also, what was hippie dogma but another incarnation of cultural Marxism? The big difference of course (besides the fact that hippies were anti-government, while feminism and government are a match made in heaven) being that hippies encouraged EVERYBODY to do whatever the hell they want, INCLUDING men.

Why do these trans folk need acceptance? I'll never accept them. They should retreat into the closet.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

It wasn't meant to contradict, just to clarify. You made it sound like homosexual sex makes you more disease-prone, when in fact it's just irresponsibility that makes you more susceptible to venereal disease (regardless of sexual orientation).

In other words, that fun fact you pointed out was of no real importance whatsoever.

No, you will never have a homosexual population that is not more susceptible to venereal disease, to think so would just be idiotic.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It's just that the overwhelming majority of organizations dedicated to studying the effects of parenting and child development agree that homosexual parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting. Your post about children "needing" separate, heterosexual male and female parents to develop properly or happily is at odds with scientific consensus.

Yea ok so first you come out saying you don't trust my sources, because they are biased to be against gays without even trying to prove the results can't be trusted. Then you pull up a completely biased study that lacked any sort of conclusion, which i had put in the time and effort to show you why it was. Now you are saying oh, the majority of people who are studying the effects are pro, so that obviously means they are right. No, its just that most of the people funding the research want gay marriage to be legal. I'll let you in on a little secret, they know its degenerate.

* This discussion of homosexuality acceptance has been split from the transgender thread. Please refrain from thread hijacking.