Another Republican and Lewd Bahavior in a Men's Restroom

[local 12 proud]

Wow ..what a shock! An organization that exists to try and "convert" homosexuals says that homosexuality IS a choice and CAN be changed.

Let's hear from a real organization:

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

And no, I don't believe that people should have sex only with the intent to reproduce. But, if someone is going to say that homosexual sex is illogical on the grounds that it can't produce a child, then they should say that heterosexual sex under the sam circumstances is also illogical.

Hey don't shoot the messenger just because its a hard pill to digest.

Its the same folks who were once saying it was genetic and are now revising previous notions due to further medical and psychological studies.

References

Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 883-884.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, pp. 1089-1096.

Breedlove, M.S. (1997). Sex on the brain. Nature, 389, p. 801.

Byne, W. & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: the biological theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, pp. 228-239.

Diamond. L.M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), pp. 241-250.

Dreifus, C. (2001). Exploring what makes us male or female. New York Times, Science Section, January 2.

Ferguson, D. M, Horwood, L.J. & Beautrais, A.L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 876-880.

Friedman, R. C. & Downey, J. (1993). Neurobiology and sexual orientation: current relationships. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 5(2), pp. 131-153.

Haldeman, D. (2000). Gay rights, patients' rights: the implementation of sexual orientation conversion therapy (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association), Washington, D. C., August.

Hamer, D.(1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, p. 321.

Hamer, D & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire. New York: Simon and Schuster

Herrell, R., Goldberg, J., True, W.R., Ramakrishnan, V., Lyons, M., Eisen, S. & Tsuang, M. T. (1999). Sexual orientation and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 657-661.

LeVay, S. (1996). Queer Science. Cambridge, MIT Press.

LeVay, S. (2001). Sexual orientation: the science and social impact. 12. Retrieved April 3, 2001 from: http:members.aol.com/_ht_a/slevay/page12.htm.

Mitchell, N. (1995). Genetics, sexuality linked, study says. Standard Examiner, April 30.

Murray, B. (2000). Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual. Monitor on Psychology, 31 (3), p. 15.

National Association For Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (2001). Press Release. Prominent psychiatrist announces new study results-some gays can change. May 9.

Nimmons, D. (1994). Sexual brain. Discover, 5, 3, pp. 64-67.

Paglia, C. (1994). Vamps and tramps. New York: Vintage Books.

Rice, R., Anderson, C., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, pp. 665-667.

Sandfort, T. G., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V. & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, pp. 85-91.

Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Schwartz, M. F. & Masters, W. H. (1984). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, pp. 173-181.

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....

 

[delldude]

hey Local 12....from what i've been reading...all the clinical hoopla regarding Gays went out the window due to lobbying from the LGBT crowd.......and also from what I read,they(clinical) now focus their attention to adolescent problems.....makes one think about drug resistant education...get 'em in kindergarten or its too late?

Gar...I have been on several Juries...and to do anything less than convict on the evidence is totally wrong as you've indicated by the evidence your group did.Hopefully that is the way it is done........

If you want to start playing favorites, by all means go ahead, just don't be surprised when it comes to bite you in the ass.

Key words,Gar..'peaceful assembly'....guaranteed under the big 'C'.

First amendment protections to speak freely about religion,sexual orientation,racial divide and on and on...ain't it great?
Some 200 years ago,a group of people who never ever could have fathomed what society would be like today made tenets that today, still for the most part cover most scenario's.Yes it isn't perfect,but then when has man lived in a perfect world?Changes can be made to the 'C'....but I believe the populace must vote or support constitutional amendments,right?And that support would be in telephone calls and e-mails to your respective representative as was done with the boosheet immigration bill...Blame its failure on talk radio....

In light of the Labor Day holiday...i'm going out on the deck and grill my weenie...

 

[rjh]

Its the same folks who were once saying it was genetic and are now revising previous notions due to further medical and psychological studies.

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....

Really? that does'nt seem to be the consensus today!
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

So, because one organization with a few medical professionals makes it a consensus? Interesting . .

Recent statements by professional associations
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975.

Recent statements by professional organizations include:

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.
The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981.
The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.

In 1994-AUGUST, The APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical:

attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or
referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation

The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." They state:

"...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
"...psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
"...homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem."
"There is no evidence indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." 1

In 1997_AUG-14, the APA published a news release about a recently passed resolution "on so-called reparative therapy." The resolution "raises ethical concerns about attempts to change sexual orientation, reaffirms psychology's opposition to homophobia and client's rights to unbiased treatment." 2

The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation."

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is a professional organization for psychiatrists, psychologists, other therapists, social workers, and behavioral scientists. They, alone among professional mental health organizations, promote reparative therapy for gays and lesbians. Their Statement of Policy and Right to Treatment completely contradicts statements by all other professional mental health organizations, and mirrors the beliefs of fundamentalist and other conservative Christians and Jews . Their total membership is somewhat over 1,000 which compares to the over 132,000 members of the American Psychological Association.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm

 

[Garfield1966]

Dell,

My point is that even though we the people have the ability to change the Constitution, do we really want to make a change to it that goes against everything this country stands for. Think about it for a minute. All the amendments that have been passed since the creation of the document gave people more rights or granted status to a group that did not have it. A amendment banning same sex marriages (I assume that is what we are talking about) would be the first time that we officially banned a group of people from enjoying the same rights that all other citizens of this country enjoy. Is that a path we really want to go down? Do we really want to link a religious belief to our founding document? I know that people like 700 would like noting more than that. I know a majority of people do not believe in same sex marriage. I also believe that these same people when asked if it is OK to deny rights to one set of people and not another set of people who are equal in all other regards, would say that is not right. I think you will also agree that the people in this nation, for the most part are like sheep. Given a charismatic leader, they will follow straight over the precipice (sp?). This is the same populace who thought burning person at the stake was a good idea. That a segregated military was a good idea, that rounding up all Japanese America citizens, taking all their belongings and putting them in camps was a good idea. That not allowing women to own property till the 1920's was a good idea. That owning another human being was good idea.

There are times when the people do not know right from wrong. They make decisions based on fear, stereo types, bad information or what ever the case may be.

I don't care what someone thinks of same sex marriage. Until someone can show society how it will infringe on the rights of someone else. How it will harm someone else, there is no compelling reason to ban it. There is no support in the US Constitution and as I said above, it is not what this country stands for.

Enjoy your weiner. We had a pot luck here at work it is not half bad. I'm going for seconds.

 

[Garfield1966]

NARTH as a source? Now that is funny.

 

[rjh]

Dell,

My point is that even though we the people have the ability to change the Constitution, do we really want to make a change to it that goes against everything this country stands for. Think about it for a minute. All the amendments that have been passed since the creation of the document gave people more rights or granted status to a group that did not have it. A amendment banning same sex marriages (I assume that is what we are talking about) would be the first time that we officially banned a group of people from enjoying the same rights that all other citizens of this country enjoy. Is that a path we really want to go down? Do we really want to link a religious belief to our founding document? I know that people like 700 would like noting more than that. I know a majority of people do not believe in same sex marriage. I also believe that these same people when asked if it is OK to deny rights to one set of people and not another set of people who are equal in all other regards, would say that is not right. I think you will also agree that the people in this nation, for the most part are like sheep. Given a charismatic leader, they will follow straight over the precipice (sp?). This is the same populace who thought burning person at the stake was a good idea. That a segregated military was a good idea, that rounding up all Japanese America citizens, taking all their belongings and putting them in camps was a good idea. That not allowing women to own property till the 1920's was a good idea. That owning another human being was good idea.

There are times when the people do not know right from wrong. They make decisions based on fear, stereo types, bad information or what ever the case may be.

I don't care what someone thinks of same sex marriage. Until someone can show society how it will infringe on the rights of someone else. How it will harm someone else, there is no compelling reason to ban it. There is no support in the US Constitution and as I said above, it is not what this country stands for.

Very well said.

The only reason conservatives want a constitutional amendment is they KNOW that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment clearly guarantees all citizens "equal protection under the law". I respect the religious nature of marriage, and agree that each religion has a right to regulate marraige in that aspect. However, this needs to be totally separate from the government's role in marriage. If a certain group of people receive legal benefits of marriage, then those benefits should be available to everyone. Some will argue that everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex; those people woudl then have the legal benefits. But, you are not getting "equal protection" if you can't marry someone you truly love.

 

[local 12 proud]

NARTH as a source? Now that is funny.

Theres one of those one liners you harp about....One word!

HYPOCRIT

C'mon kitty, you did'nt read the link or you would know that it came from the same source that proposed homosexuality was genetic. You are just as much or more so biased than any right winger because you choose to see whatever meets your fancy.

I still think your just pissed because your not Gay!!!!!!

 

[Garfield1966]

Yes I did read the link but I also researched the group. They believe that it is a choice that can be cured. They seem to stand alone in the medical community.

This is a group that is trying to 'convert' people. I can find no other medical source that agrees with their stance.

edit:

Have you noticed that you are pretty much the only person I respond to in that manner? Every wonder why?

By the way, you were the one who told me to lighten up. I thought you were making a joke when you used NARTH as a source. My apologies, I did not know you were being serious.

 

[local 12 proud]

Yes I did read the link but I also researched the group. They believe that it is a choice that can be cured. They seem to stand alone in the medical community.

This is a group that is trying to 'convert' people. I can find no other medical source that agrees with their stance.

I thought you were making a joke when you used NARTH as a source. My apologies, I did not know you were being serious.

Well look what your beloved news source has to say about converting 'Gays'

Seems the professional medical community knows more about human behavoir than the ones who are afflicted...

One reason why homosexuals are so rarely cured is that they rarely try treatment. Too many of them actually believe that they are happy and satisfied the way they are. Another reason, says Philadelphia's Dr. Samuel B. Hadden, is that too many psychiatrists are still inhibited by the 45-year-old pessimism of Freud, who was convinced that the condition was discouragingly difficult to treat. Even when psychiatrists do try to aid homosexuals, their efforts are likely to be ineffectual because they themselves have so little confidence of success. Both patients and doctors are wrong, Dr. Hadden told the American Group Psychotherapy Association in San Francisco last week.

Male homosexuals,* he said, are more treatable and curable than is generally believed. And the people who are the most effective therapists are other homosexuals who have been under treatment for a while. As a psychiatrist actively practicing group therapy for the treatment of neurotics and psychotics of all sorts, Dr. Hadden, 64, marshaled impressive evidence to support his case.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,840542,00.html

Hey Delldude, enjoy the grill Im doing the same. Got some Samuel Adams on ice and ribeyes that have been marinating all day...mmmmmmm :wub:

 

[Garfield1966]

Hadden Bio.


For Hadden, homosexuality was an "experientially determined and treatable condition." His greatest professional interest being group psychotherapy, Hadden was the first psychiatrist to use this method of treatment with exclusive male homosexual groups. Although compassionate in his approach, his professional and personal outlook remained consistent even after homosexuality was taken off the DSMIII list of diseases. Although his views on homosexuality are controversial at best, Hadden was highly respected in his field for his contribution to the development of group psychotherapy.



When did you choose to be straight?


Edit:

Can someone please explain to e why someone would choose a life style that will ostracize them from society, cut them of from family members, deprive them of rights afforded to every other citizen, segregated in society, place them at higher risk of suicide because of the afore mentioned problems. I know there are the individuals out there in society who like to buck the trend but that is the exception in my opinion. I have asked my gay friends if they chose their path or if it was something that chose them. The later was always the answer.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

It's GENETIC, and the naysayers KNOW it(now), but will never admit it.

If the Creator "calls my number" tommorow, and just before I "check out", if someone were to ask me, the #1 mostamazing thing, I learned about/saw, in my lifetime, would be the DNA thing....HANDS DOWN !!!!

Another way of viewing this is, that the problem with their system(theorys) is that they believe in MANIFEST DESTINY, almost to a tee.

 

[Maurice Chevalier]

Well look what your beloved news source has to say about converting 'Gays'

Seems the professional medical community knows more about human behavoir than the ones who are afflicted...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,840542,00.html

It must have taken quite a bit of digging. That article was written in 1965. A lot has been learned and many things have changed since then. Heck, I was even still alive in those days.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Yes but only to a point........popular rage has indeed fomented many laws into being.....Megan for one.You were pointing out something akin to a lynch mob mentality as to creating laws I believe.
Popular rage isn't a good basis for a legal system to operate on......Juris de Jour??
Christian right or whatever religion....the Ten Commandments did have a lot to do with law in its coming of age.Yes there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding religious foundations of law or accepting or rejecting the gay movement.However,the present day Gayphobic notions are age old without a doubt...right or wrong?Depends what your beliefs are.

Yes, indeed. Popular Rage has been the driving force behind many laws. Importantly, however, this is usually only at the state level (including Megan's law). I would venture a guess that a large percentage of state laws were enacted due to this very reason. But those laws must still abide by the protections provided in the Constitution. And it is clear, from the writings of several drafters, that the Constitution was created, in part, to protect individual liberty from majority rule -- whether it be mob mentality or not. Whether the majority is the Christian Righties or the liberal southpaws, the constitution safeguards against laws being enacted solely because the majority says it should be enacted (ex. Anti-miscegenation laws).

But you have very good points regarding the history and concept of our law... which was taken from English common law, which was influenced by religious, economic, philisophical, and social factors that likely stem all the way back to Hammurabi's code. Sodomy laws have been in the books for thousands of years, and has seen its day in many different legal systems. This fact alone is something that I think should be addressed (in other words, it is very difficult to side-step this argument by simply saying that these thousands of years of laws are based on fear and steroetypes). For my own viewpoint, see below.

But, you are not getting "equal protection" if you can't marry someone you truly love.

For those who use this "true love" logic as an equal protection trump-card, I believe you are using faulty logic and engaging in an argument that is a very, very slippery slope.

Take this for example, suppose Jim loves Frank. Delldude would aruge that these two should not have the right to marry and 700 would argue that these two should not have the right to engage in sexual activity with each other. RJH, on the contrary, would argue that because these two people love each other, they should have the right to marry. Well, would your argument change if Jim was 42 and Frank was only 9 years old??? What if Frank was a dog??? But they love each other??? Why are they not afforded equal protection under the laws? Obviously this is a very philisophical question, but it is not one that can be answered by saying "because they love each other." There are much better arguments for your side.



On a personal note, I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. But with that said, I do not think that I should force my morals on others by attemptiong to enact laws that I feel are more in-tune with my moral compass. I freely engage in discussion with those of opposing views; I may try to convince/persuade them of my views, but why should my belief system be FORCED upon another?

Moreover, for those who also allow the Bible to influence their lives... the Bible calls us to be fishers of men -- to change men and women's hearts. It does not call us to try and force biblical morals onto other people (does that change people's hearts???).

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Good points(as usual) "Lily".

Another oppertunity(for me) to add........the 2 MOST dangerous kind of people in this country;

Religious FANATICS...+...Blind Patriots !

 

[Maurice Chevalier]

Well, would your argument change if Jim was 42 and Frank was only 9 years old??? What if Frank was a dog??? But they love each other??? Why are they not afforded equal protection under the laws? Obviously this is a very philisophical question, but it is not one that can be answered by saying "because they love each other." There are much better arguments for your side.

This discussion is about consenting adults, not children. Your analogy is flawed. Society has placed many restrictions on their rights and activities.

Comparison to animals??? That is flame baiting of the worst kind.