OT rant aargh!

On 22 Sep 2003 04:22:43 -0700, (Corvus Corvax)
wrote:

I just have a longer memory. Bigots have used accusations of mental
illness to demonize their victims throughout history:

too true.

Bill

Sorni said...

What does questioning your logic have to do with being PC?

Bill "look up cumulus clouds and rain some time" S.

Again, do your own little research project and see the logic for
yourself. This isn't really the place to go into it. If you really
aren't PC, then I commend you.

"Super Slinky" wrote in message
t...
Sorni said...

What does questioning your logic have to do with being PC?

Bill "look up cumulus clouds and rain some time" S.

Again, do your own little research project and see the logic for
yourself. This isn't really the place to go into it. If you really
aren't PC, then I commend you.

In other words, you can't defend your assertion.

Bill "sometimes being PC *IS* correct" S.

Sorni said...

In other words, you can't defend your assertion.

Bill "sometimes being PC *IS* correct" S.

OK, one of the points I made was that a disproportionate number of
psychiatric patients showed homosexual behavior. The link I provided
illustrated that point. You lose. Congratulations for demonstrating your
short attention span and lack of reading comprehension. Now will you
shut up? I was trying to be nice about it.

Tlacatecatl said...

IS HOMOSEXUALITY UNIQUE TO CERTAIN CULTURES? IS IT UNIQUE TO HUMANS?

Incidence of homosexuality is similar across cultures (Carrier, 1980; Hyde,
1986)

Ditto for schizophrenia. Does this demonstrate that schizophrenia isn't
a disorder?

Many animals occasionally engage in homosexual behaviors (Ehrhardt &
Meyer-Bahlburg, 1981)

Many animals eat their own feces and kill the offspring of rivals. Does
that equate to normal behavior in humans?

The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that sexual orientation is
determined in part by genetics, and in part by prenatal events which occur
between the 2nd and 5th month of pregnancy. High stress levels and various
pharmaceuticals which intefere with prenatal testrosterone levels appear to
contribute to homosexuality. There are clear physiological differences,
specifically in brain function, between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

There is also a clear difference between homosexual orientation, and
homosexual behavior. Various sociological and psychological factors may cause
heterosexuals under certain conditions to engage in homosexual behavior, but
homosexual orientation appears to be biologically determined by the time of
birth.

Two additional notes. First, the overhwelming majority of child sexual abuse
is committed by heterosexuals (check crime statistics to confirm). Second, in
places like Africa, Malaysia, India, the Carribean, and other places as well,
AIDS is spreading faster in the heterosexual population than in the
homosexual population (check CDC stats to confirm).

I doubt that this will change anyone¹s mind. But note that if you believe
that homosexuality is a mental illness or a disease, or that it is caused by
weak fathers or gay scoutmasters or various other social conditions, you are
at odds with half a century of scientific research.

Sophistries, fallacies, and non sequiturs. Are you really a scientist,
or do you just play one on Usenet? Because it can be linked to genetic
and prenatal factors precludes it from being a disorder? A bizarre
conclusion. Countless disorders have genetic and prenatal causes. I am
baffled as to why you think this is such a disarming argument. The
associations between homosexuality and various mental disorders are more
than tenuous. I have cited one very important association and there are
others. As for child molestation and homosexuality, it all depends on
where the statistics come from. Boys are less likely to report the abuse
than girls. I'm sure you have heard of NAMBLA, but there is no
equivalent organization for the systematic molestation of girls. But no
matter what statistics you choose to believe, there can be no denying
that homosexuals are vastly over-represented as child molesters compared
to their prevalence in the general population. There are no doubt many
reasons for homosexual behavior, but whether a person has some sort of
brain malfunction, or if what would otherwise be a heterosexual person
is drawn to the hype surrounding the gay culture, my point was that
homosexuality is abnormal, deviant behavior. That is self-evident, and
like the emperor who wore no clothes, all the potentates in the land
claiming to see that which is not there does not alter reality.

Which brings us to your long-winded bibliography. Is it any surprise
that the academia of psychology has adopted the activist gay cause? The
home of the academics is the same as that of the gay movement--college
campuses. I spent years in that world, and I know how it works. Not only
is it an incestuous relationship to begin with, since there are any
number of research PhDs who are also homosexual, but the gay movement is
an irresistible force there, and the academics are no immovable object.
In fact there is a conflict of interest, because the gay activists and
their sympathizers are their students, their colleagues, and ultimately
their meal ticket. Of course they took the path of least resistance and
gave the gay movement the orthodox approval they demand. To do anything
less would have started a battle that they hadn't bargained for. It just
wasn't a hill they were prepared to die on. You can still find a few
mavericks who reject what is obviously a capitulation and a sell-out,
but such honesty comes with a high price, since they are invariably
shouted down as religious fanatics or bigots, as is happening to me in
this thread.

So let's just say that we have both had our say and that we aren't going
to convince each other. I won't detail the myriad health problems,
diseases and generally shortened life span that is endemic to the gay
lifestyle. You would no doubt shrug that off too, in spite of the fact
that these concerns alone should mark homosexuality as an illness and a
health concern demanding the attention of health professionals.

Corvus Corvax said...

Yawn. I'm glad you know how to quote abstracts.

And I'm glad you know how to yawn. But why is it supposed to impress me?

I just have a longer memory. Bigots have used accusations of mental
illness to demonize their victims throughout history:

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/0...s/mental01.htm

You're no different.

Wow, it didn't take you long to poison the well, did it Mr. Fallacy? I'm
a little surprised that you resorted to such a lame, low-brow cheap shot
so quickly, but of course it was inevitable. You PC parrots are nothing
if not predictable. How long will it be before you label me a Nazi and I
get to invoke Godwin's Law?

"Super Slinky" wrote in message
t...
Sorni said...

In other words, you can't defend your assertion.

Bill "sometimes being PC *IS* correct" S.

OK, one of the points I made was that a disproportionate number of
psychiatric patients showed homosexual behavior. The link I provided
illustrated that point.

No, you stated this: "A very high percentage of homosexuals have easily
diagnosed mental disorders"

Then you posted a link to a study saying that a high percentage of mental
patients exhibit homosexual behaviors.

I pointed out that this does NOT prove/support your initial assertion. (Not
even bothering with cause/effect.)

Then you got all ****y and dicky, culminating in:

You lose. Congratulations for demonstrating your
short attention span and lack of reading comprehension. Now will you
shut up? I was trying to be nice about it.

You really do have thin skin, don't you?

Bill "pointing out your fallacious logic has nothing to do with your obvious
homophobia" S.

Sorni said...

No, you stated this: "A very high percentage of homosexuals have easily
diagnosed mental disorders"

Then you posted a link to a study saying that a high percentage of mental
patients exhibit homosexual behaviors.

I pointed out that this does NOT prove/support your initial assertion. (Not
even bothering with cause/effect.)

Actually, I made both points. The link illustrated one of them. That
homosexuals have a high rate of psychiatric disorders is not disputed
even by the apologists for homosexuality, only the cause of it. In fact,
gay activists use it to illustrate how persecuted they are. Again, do
some of your own research. It is all out there if you want to find it. I
don't have the time and this isn't the place to detail all of it.

You really do have thin skin, don't you?

I guess that makes two of us, but you can believe whatever makes you
happy. I just didn't want to keep posting about it endlessly, because I
know that you will keep up the argumentative one-liners until doomsday.
So go ahead and have your last word, I'm done with this thread.

"Super Slinky" wrote in message
t...
Sorni said...

No, you stated this: "A very high percentage of homosexuals have easily
diagnosed mental disorders"

Then you posted a link to a study saying that a high percentage of
mental
patients exhibit homosexual behaviors.

I pointed out that this does NOT prove/support your initial assertion.
(Not
even bothering with cause/effect.)

Actually, I made both points. The link illustrated one of them. That
homosexuals have a high rate of psychiatric disorders is not disputed
even by the apologists for homosexuality, only the cause of it. In fact,
gay activists use it to illustrate how persecuted they are. Again, do
some of your own research. It is all out there if you want to find it. I
don't have the time and this isn't the place to detail all of it.

I agree this isn't the place. Too bad you started it all with:
"Homosexuality is nothing but a form of sexual deviance and mild mental
illness. The tireless efforts to legitimize it are even crazier."

You really do have thin skin, don't you?

I guess that makes two of us, but you can believe whatever makes you
happy. I just didn't want to keep posting about it endlessly, because I
know that you will keep up the argumentative one-liners until doomsday.
So go ahead and have your last word, I'm done with this thread.

Smart move.

Bill "tried to joke with you when you got all bent out of shape with Steve,
but you're just so friggin' SERIOUS" S.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:39:52 -0700, Super Slinky wrote:

Ditto for schizophrenia. Does this demonstrate that schizophrenia isn't
a disorder?

One of the classic arguments against a biological basis for homosexual
orientation has been that it is a cultural phenomenon, brought about by
various pressures of family and society. When the incidence of homosexuality
is seen to be virtually identical in cultures all over the world, which have
radically different customs, practices, traditions, family structures, social
structures, and so on, it is impossible to pin down a specific element common
to all of those cultures and societies that could be the cause of
homosexuality.

And thus your point is right on target, although perhaps not the target you
intended. Schizophrenia clearly has a biological basis, and so does
homosexuality, and so do a variety of other characteristics. They are similar
in that respect. I¹ll return to the topic of disorders in a moment.


Many animals eat their own feces and kill the offspring of rivals. Does
that equate to normal behavior in humans?

³Normal² has a variety of applications. Statistically, Shaquille O¹Neal is
highly abnormal with respect to his height. Einstein was also highly abnormal
with respect to his intelligence. However it is normal for a certain
percentage of the population to be over 7 feet tall, just as it is normal for
a certain percentage of the population to have astronomically high IQ¹s.
³Normal² turns out not to be a very useful term.

The point of the research cited above is that the organization of the brain
is very similar among vertebrates, and more similar still among mammals. If
animals, particularly mammals, engage in homosexual behavior, it is a stretch
to attribute that to cultural or societal factors, given that different
animal species have very different social structures, if in fact they have a
social structure at all.

Other research that I cited indicated that genetic factors, prenatal stress
and various drugs influence the development of the sexual regions of the
vertebrate brain. This produces a homosexual orientation in a variety of
animal species, including humans. Along with other research I cited which
demonstrates that there are measurable differences between the brains of
heterosexuals and homosexuals, the conclusion is inescapable. Homosexual
orientation is a biological phenomenon, which involves differences in the
development, organization and function of specific portions of the vertebrate
brain. Homosexuals don't "choose" to be sexually attracted to members of the
same sex, they're born that way.


Sophistries, fallacies, and non sequiturs.

I don¹t see your evidence or your reasoning. One of the great things about
science is that it is conducted in the public forum. All of the articles I
cited are available at the library. If you think you have found flaws in
those studies, point them out.


Are you really a scientist,
or do you just play one on Usenet?

Using an inclusive rather than an exclusive ³or², the answer is ³yes².


Because it can be linked to genetic
and prenatal factors precludes it from being a disorder? A bizarre
conclusion. Countless disorders have genetic and prenatal causes. I am
baffled as to why you think this is such a disarming argument.

As I discussed above, you can consider Shaq to have a height disorder and
Einstein to have an intelligence disorder if you wish. But the term
³disorder² generally has a more specific meaning in science, namely that
there is some morbidity or impairment of function. Yet there is no known
impairment or morbidity for homosexuals. With respect to measures of
intelligence, physical health, psychological health, social adjustment,
vision, hearing, chemical senses, tactile and proprioceptive senses,
mechanical aptitude, athletic ability, verbal ability, mathematical ability,
spatial ability, and on and on they are the same as heterosexuals.

Promiscuous individuals, homosexual and heterosexual, who engage in risky
sexual practices have a lower life expectancy and higher incidence of
disease. But homosexuals in monogamous relationships, or who practice safe
sex, have the same incidence of morbidity and mortality as heterosexuals in
the same situations. Individuals with a homosexual orientation (think back to
biological differences in brain structure) are no different than
heterosexuals in any way except one: Their sexual orientation.


The
associations between homosexuality and various mental disorders are more
than tenuous. I have cited one very important association and there are
others.

The proportions of homosexuals may differ from those of heterosexuals with
respect to any particular psychological disorder, just as the proportions of
males and females differ for specific disorders, and likewise with the
proportions of individuals of various races, nationalities, socioeconomic
status, and so on. But across the board, considering all disorders taken
together, there is no difference in the incidence of psychological disorders
between homosexuals and heterosexuals. That was one of the articles I cited.


As for child molestation and homosexuality, it all depends on
where the statistics come from. Boys are less likely to report the abuse
than girls. I'm sure you have heard of NAMBLA, but there is no
equivalent organization for the systematic molestation of girls. But no
matter what statistics you choose to believe, there can be no denying
that homosexuals are vastly over-represented as child molesters compared
to their prevalence in the general population.

The Department of Justice does not classify crimes by sexual orientation, and
as you point out there are problems in reporting as well as problems in the
methodology used for counting crimes. As a result all of the numbers in this
area are highly speculative.

In any case the fact remains that the probability of a child being molested
by a heterosexual is much higher than the probability of molestation by a
homosexual, based solely on the fact that homosexuals represent only a small
fraction of the population. If we¹re concerned about the incidence of sex
crimes against children, the heterosexual population will contribute the vast
majority of sex offenders and sex crimes.


There are no doubt many
reasons for homosexual behavior, but whether a person has some sort of
brain malfunction, or if what would otherwise be a heterosexual person
is drawn to the hype surrounding the gay culture, my point was that
homosexuality is abnormal, deviant behavior. That is self-evident, and
like the emperor who wore no clothes, all the potentates in the land
claiming to see that which is not there does not alter reality.

What is evident to you is not evident to the scientific community at large,
and hopefully is becoming less "evident" to the population at large. A
certain percentage of the population is born with a homosexual orientation,
just as certain percentages are born left handed, or over 6 feet tall, or
with unusually good eye-hand coordination, and so on. To deny this is to be
out of touch with reality. To call these "disorders" is to use a highly
idiosyncractic personal definition of the term.


Which brings us to your long-winded bibliography. Is it any surprise
that the academia of psychology has adopted the activist gay cause?

In many of the articles I cited the research was conducted not by
psychologists, but by biochemists, neuroscientists, physiologists, cell and
molecular biologists, physicians, and so on.


The
home of the academics is the same as that of the gay movement--college
campuses. I spent years in that world, and I know how it works. Not only
is it an incestuous relationship to begin with, since there are any
number of research PhDs who are also homosexual, but the gay movement is
an irresistible force there, and the academics are no immovable object.
In fact there is a conflict of interest, because the gay activists and
their sympathizers are their students, their colleagues, and ultimately
their meal ticket. Of course they took the path of least resistance and
gave the gay movement the orthodox approval they demand. To do anything
less would have started a battle that they hadn't bargained for. It just
wasn't a hill they were prepared to die on. You can still find a few
mavericks who reject what is obviously a capitulation and a sell-out,
but such honesty comes with a high price, since they are invariably
shouted down as religious fanatics or bigots, as is happening to me in
this thread.

You have just put forth, without evidence, a conspiracy theory in which you
propose that the majority of the scientific community in this field is
somehow in league against heterosexuals. Unlike homosexuality, this has the
makings of an identifiable psychological disorder.


So let's just say that we have both had our say and that we aren't going
to convince each other. I won't detail the myriad health problems,
diseases and generally shortened life span that is endemic to the gay
lifestyle. You would no doubt shrug that off too, in spite of the fact
that these concerns alone should mark homosexuality as an illness and a
health concern demanding the attention of health professionals.

You¹re confusing homosexual behavior with homosexual orientation. The former
consists of actions, the latter consists of neural development and brain
structures. As I said above, a promiscuous lifestyle by any individual
results in a variety of health problems, but homosexual orientation by itself
results in none.

I had already surmised that you would probably not be receptive to the
information I posted. My goal was to provide the information for those who
might not know the science behind all of this, in the hope that eventually
the bigotry against homosexuality, as well as the bigotry involving race and
gender and so on, may become a thing of the past.

If you want to discuss this further I will gladly continue, but for the
benefit of the readers of am-b we should take this offline.


Tlacatecatl Tlacaxipe