|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
posted July 07, 2013 01:06 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 13:09, 07 Jul 2013.
|
Sal, I already answered your questions and solved your puzzle (yes, I also pointed out why homosexuality is more similar to heterosexuality than to pedophilia) and yet you don't even want to respond, continuing to "prove" your point in so stubborn and ridiculous way. I know you don't have to agree with my points, but at least make some statement about them, because when you're ignoring them like they don't even exist, there's no discussion at all, so your posts in this thread are just being pointless and dumb.
Same goes for Elodin, sadly. At least say "I don't care what you're saying", that would be clear.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 07, 2013 01:41 PM |
|
|
|
We could go for a month just saying that everyone who does not agree is pointless and dumb. Sadly this does not make us more intelligent, just linear and simplistic thinking, which is the shorter and safest way to throw shallow labels.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2013 10:59 PM |
|
|
Sal... Seriously...
1. Ignoring anyone's posts isn't the same as disagreeing - it's just disrespectful. It's like you pretend someone's arguments don't exist and by that you're trying to prove your points. Even saying "I don't want to comment this" would be better - at least you would prove that you cared to read something.
2. I didn't name you pointless and dumb. I said that IF you don't want to have a discussion in this thread (since you're not aware of what I e.g. say), then YOUR POSTS are dumb and pointless - unless you care about what people want to say.
Seriously, this is getting more and more absurd and reminds me of trolling. I don't think that's the problem though.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2013 11:09 PM |
|
|
no, salamandre is speaking clearly and concisely. that you guys don't get what he is saying is beyond me. i won't bother trying to explain it to you, since you ignored me. then you claim that salamandre is ignoring you... wow.
come down off your moral high-horses, gentlemen, and you will notice that what salamandre is saying, is in fact, both relevant, and true.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2013 11:37 PM |
|
|
Where did I say ANYTHING about him talking not clearly and concisely? And which of your posts did I actually ignore? "no it wasn't" one?
You seem to miss the point. I wasn't speaking anything about Salamandre arguments' legitimacy at the moment, I wanted to point out that he ignored my answers that were already made many posts ago and that there's no discussion if we don't care about what opponent says.
Let me quote myself, maybe then you will understand why I'm sure Salamandre did not read my posts.
Quote:
The point is: pedophilia and bestiality are labeled as wrong (which, apparently, I believe is a little bit not right) because when you're having sex with 8 years old girl/boy or with your dog, he/she/it probably doesn't like that at all. Incest, on the other hand, is labeled as wrong (but wasn't always, suprisingly) because reproducing by incestous sex would make children have a greatly increased risk of disabilities and even death. So apparently it's basically the same as if a woman is drinking alcohol while being pregnant. Also, you would be very surprised if you heard how many people apparently had some incest experience - most of them, however, hadn't impregnated themselves by such activities.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, gives as much harm and pain as heterosexuality - mutual love is definitely more common than rape. So homosexuality can't be labeled in the same way the pedophilia or bestiality are because it's considered to be good by both sides of sexual intercourse or union. Of course there are exceptions, but while raping is an exception for both hetero- and homosexuality, sharing love is an exception for both pedophilia or bestiality.
The only thing I didn't address DIRECTLY is "chemical roots", but it's irrelevant since homosexuality and e.g. pedophilia or necrophilia are different things and have very distinct attributes - and that's what I was talking about here.
If you don't agree with above - that's fine, it's not like you have to, but there is no indication in Sal's posts that he actually read what I said. His further arguments were exactly what I was pointing at and yet I got no answers, just something about being "lineral". That's what ignoring is.
Now you understand?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 07, 2013 11:48 PM |
|
|
Hobbit, besides repeating 10 times penguins have anal sex, you don't say much...
You (and some others) are continuously affirming that homosexuality is a natural variant of heterosexuality. Do you know WHAT is a variant? A variant is when it makes 30° Celsius out, a variant is when I change my breakfast menu and consume today oranges instead of apples, then maybe tomorrow I will get some bananas. Homosexuality could also be a variant and those who practices it as a variant aren't those who are asking for marriage. Those who ask for marriage don't feel it as a variant, but as exclusive and irreversible state, and here I affirm that it is a sexual disorder, as it was always considered until a few decades ago, where the political correct pushed over in search for voters sympathy or whatever abysmal reasons, like it does today in almost every field, from immigration to homosexuality.
And as I said, I really don't care whatever does everyone in private, variant or not. It is when he comes out loudly yelling for same rights within the argument that he is like everyone that I voice my opinion.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 12:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Where did I say ANYTHING about him talking not clearly and concisely? And which of your posts did I actually ignore? "no it wasn't" one?
You seem to miss the point. I wasn't speaking anything about Salamandre arguments' legitimacy at the moment, I wanted to point out that he ignored my answers that were already made many posts ago and that there's no discussion if we don't care about what opponent says.
Let me quote myself, maybe then you will understand why I'm sure Salamandre did not read my posts.
Quote:
The point is: pedophilia and bestiality are labeled as wrong (which, apparently, I believe is a little bit not right) because when you're having sex with 8 years old girl/boy or with your dog, he/she/it probably doesn't like that at all. Incest, on the other hand, is labeled as wrong (but wasn't always, suprisingly) because reproducing by incestous sex would make children have a greatly increased risk of disabilities and even death. So apparently it's basically the same as if a woman is drinking alcohol while being pregnant. Also, you would be very surprised if you heard how many people apparently had some incest experience - most of them, however, hadn't impregnated themselves by such activities.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, gives as much harm and pain as heterosexuality - mutual love is definitely more common than rape. So homosexuality can't be labeled in the same way the pedophilia or bestiality are because it's considered to be good by both sides of sexual intercourse or union. Of course there are exceptions, but while raping is an exception for both hetero- and homosexuality, sharing love is an exception for both pedophilia or bestiality.
The only thing I didn't address DIRECTLY is "chemical roots", but it's irrelevant since homosexuality and e.g. pedophilia or necrophilia are different things and have very distinct attributes - and that's what I was talking about here.
If you don't agree with above - that's fine, it's not like you have to, but there is no indication in Sal's posts that he actually read what I said. His further arguments were exactly what I was pointing at and yet I got no answers, just something about being "lineral". That's what ignoring is.
Now you understand?
the way i was interpreting the communication between you, minion, artu, and sal, was that you guys were talking about morally wrong, and salamandre was saying that morally wrong isn't black and white. for some stupid reason, i had forgotten about the post you quoted yourself on. sorry about that, hobbit. 
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 12:40 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 00:51, 08 Jul 2013.
|
No problem, fred. It's good that everything turned out clear now.
About Salamandre - that's good that we can discuss now, I'd like to go somewhere with this whole thread. So...
Quote:
You (and some others) are continuously affirming that homosexuality is a natural variant of heterosexuality.
I must say that's not true at all. What I and - I guess - some others are saying is that man can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual (or sometimes asexual, but that's not important right now). Homosexuality will never be a "variant" of heterosexuality because these two are different from the very basis. It's like saying democracy is a variant of monarchy - that makes no sense at all and in fact can make lots of harm in our society.
Quote:
and here I affirm that it is a sexual disorder, as it was always considered until a few decades ago
That's not true either. In Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Latin America civilizations, East and South Asia homosexual acts were common and weren't treated as any kind of disease, but rather as "spiritual experience" or just as they are portrayed nowadays. From the 13th century death was a punishment for homosexual acts, but it's because homosexuality was called a sin back then, not a "disorder". That didn't stop people from having gay sex in Renaissance however.
In 18th and 19th centuries there were many novels about homosexuality (portrayed in a good way) and even some discussions about anti-homosexual laws have occured (see Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hirschfeld). Executions for sodomy were abolished in most of European countries and that's where the term "sexual disorder" appeared - first person who claimed officially that homosexuality is a disease was Richard von Krafft-Ebing, and it was in 1886!
World Health Organization declassified homosexuality from sexual and mental disorders list in 1990. So homosexuality was treated as a disorder for about one hundred years. From 13th to 19th century it was treated as a sin and/or crime (and none of sins nor crimes were treated as disorders or diseases by any means). Before and after that - it was considered as "just happening", maybe even something that people should be proud of.
In other words: history and biology seem to be against your judgements. You can say whatever you want, you can believe whatever you want, you can seek any "abysmal reasons" you want, but it's just an opinion which is both historically unjustified and offensive for many people, including myself. You should be aware of that.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 12:50 AM |
|
|
|
Heterosexuality is also trigger for many sexual disorders as variants, so I can't see why one would find the term offensive. My point is about the universal opinion handling minorities requests: if you agree on one thing, you will have sooner or later to agree on dependencies. Do I feel at ease tomorrow to have polygamy legalized? Not really but if you think well, all your arguments in favor of homosexual marriage are valid for polygamy as well, so why wouldn't be? Do I feel at ease for example to see homosexual contacts openly displayed in movies/theaters, as it will surely be requested? No, sorry, my instinct find repulsive such views, there is nothing I can do. Do I feel normal to pay through my taxes assisted procreation for fertile homosexual couples, as they request it TODAY? Sorry, no. Am I homophobic because I have heterosexual strong instincts? I think not, but that's it, someone has to have the balls and voice a different opinion than the usual bla bla, everyone is nice.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 12:59 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 01:09, 08 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Heterosexuality is also trigger for many sexual disorders as variants, so I can't see why one would find the term offensive.
You said that homosexuality IS a sexual disorder on its own. If you had a long hair and I said that having a long hair is a mental disorder, would you feel okay with that?
Quote:
Do I feel at ease tomorrow to have polygamy legalized? Not really but if you think well, all your arguments in favor of homosexual marriage are valid for polygamy as well, so why wouldn't be?
Actually I'm not against legalizing polygamy in any country - it's not like everyone would do that anyway, like with homosexuals. I would change my mind, however, if there was a proof that such a law will be harmful for many people.
EDIT: Eh, I should check some infos about it before making any statements... Polygyny is actually condemned as human rights abuse and it is harmful for many people, so at the moment I'm not against nor pro legalizing it, and your point is actually a little bit irrelevant in that case. Sorry.
Quote:
Do I feel normal to pay through my taxes assisted procreation for fertile homosexual couples, as they request it TODAY? Sorry, no.
As I said, I actually agree with you on that one.
The rest is just an opinion, and for me it's more or less homophobic, but there's nothing to discuss - some aren't okay with gays, some aren't okay with Asians, some aren't okay with soccer. I won't and don't want to change it.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 01:22 AM |
|
|
|
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. - American Psychological Association
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 02:00 AM |
|
|
Following the decision to remove homosexuality from sexual disorders homosexual activists claimed and still claim that APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture. The problem is that it is false, there are zero scientific facts. If you allow me to quote Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist who wrote in Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, chapter 4:
the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."
Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.
Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."
Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.
Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.
The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.
After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.
According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 02:33 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 02:37, 08 Jul 2013.
|
You are free to believe that propaganda and to believe in a worldwide conspiracy of psychiatrists to promote gay agenda or whatever. But this is just rediculous, and getting more so.
A lot of young homosexuals actually do develop depression or other mental conditions because of people like you telling them that they have a mental disorder!
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 02:40 AM |
|
|
I am not anti-gay activist and believe me or not, the only time I discussed this in my all life was in this thread. Now, if some people get offended to different opinions and call them ridiculous just because they don't fit their intimate beliefs then maybe such subjects should not be allowed or closed asap. We are already used to, VW rulez.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 08:30 AM |
|
|
Sal, I try to deduct your point, and I have a problem to follow. What about HETEROsexual couples, where the normal way of procreation doesn't work?
Do THEY have a right to make use of the taxpayers's money to "unnaturally procreate"?
If you decide this question this or that way, why would you decide differently for homosexual couples?
This seems to be something that would belong into the universal healthcare thread, because it has to do with
a) what is modern medical treatment able to achieve?
b) how costly is it?
c) does it have enough to do with HEALTH to warrant treatment under universal healthcare?
For example: if a woman has breast cancer and loses her breast or even breasts - what about reconstruction? Is this something universal healthcare? After all, the reconstruction will serve only two purposes
a) try and reconstruct at least part of the (sexual) attraction;
b) mental support to somehow ease the pain and the stress - relieve the feeling of loss and the mental problems that may come with it
There seems to be some agreement about the necessity of reconstruction/beauty surgery in cases of severe accidents, fire damage and so on - but where is the limit? If you are born with "too big a nose", "too small breasts", an ugly mark or anything that makes you unhappy, does public healthcare pay?
The answer is no, because there is a difference between ideas of beauty and objective disfigurations.
Usually, there is also the backorder of "depression" - if a problem is so massive for a person that said person is in danger of doing something foolish and/or needs medication (costing money as well), then the problem may still be solved under public healthcare.
Back to the initial problem and the question: is there a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples, when it comes to insemination procedures to procreate.
In my opinion there isn't.
So if heteros are treated under public healthcare I don't see any reason not to treat gays as well. If not then not.
If they ARE treated and things threaten to become too expensive, then by all means stop treating heteros under public healthcare - after all they can always adopt a child, if the insemination process is too costly for them.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 09:06 AM |
|
|
This issue is trapping the homosexuals into their own claims . Free health-care is about illness, that's it, you get your money back if you are ill (cosmetic reconstructions are not considered illness). Heterosexual couples suffering from infertility obviously fall into this category. As homosexuals consider their condition as a natural one, thus no illness, they should not benefit from. Of course, if a homosexual is proved infertile, he/she should benefit from.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 09:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This issue is trapping the homosexuals into their own claims . Free health-care is about illness, that's it, you get your money back if you are ill (cosmetic reconstructions are not considered illness). Heterosexual couples suffering from infertility obviously fall into this category. As homosexuals consider their condition as a natural one, thus no illness, they should not benefit from. Of course, if a homosexual is proved infertile, he/she should benefit from.
It's not that easy, and public health care isn't so clear (and differently regulated for each country).
However, it's clear that free health-care is NOT ONLY about illnesses. It's about accidents as well - you don't have to pay for yourself when you have an accident and break a leg or something. You also get prosthesisses, but depending on the what you get only part of the money.
Reconstructive surgery is usually paid for as well, in all cases of severe disfiguration, and breast reconstruction counts.
BEING INFERTILE is no ILLNESS (at least most of the time), but instead a condition based on a genetical problem. The same thing is true for bad eyesight (glasses or lenses are technically prosthesisses as well). In Germany you don't get a lot of money refunded from the taxpayer when you have to buy new glasses.
Same logic applies to genetic infertility problems. Would, in such a case, the taxpayer pay for an adoption as well? If not - why not?
In the end, what is paid for by public healthcare and what is not, isn't easily defined. I mean, if a person is severely depressed because of a perceived disfiguration - does it make sense that the public pays for the anti-depressants, but not for a surgery that would solve the problem once and for all?
If a percentage of the homosexuals were certified to have been born that way (genetic condition), if they were fertile they could still procreate "naturally" - or couldn't they?
Or how about this line of thought: since infertility isn't an illness - if the taxpayer pays for infertile persons still being able to procreate (basically because procreation would be considered as something everyone should be able to) - where do we draw the line when to help people to procreate and when not? I mean, take a person who looks like crap and has a hunchback - such a person probably won't get a chance to procreate, so are we supposed to help with "beauty surgery"? Or do we say, well, maybe it's not too bad to keep this set of genes out of the gene pool - but then, nature said that to the infertile persons as well.
Additionally, if the tax payer pays for costly insemination procedures and it works, society may end up having to feed another mouth if the parents can't afford a child - but if they CAN afford a child, won't they then be able to pay for the insemination procedure for themselves?
I don't think, there is anything easy about public health care and what should be paid for and what not. In my mind, GENERALLY, people should pay (small) PART of the money themselves anyway. I think that would solve a lot of problems. Co-payment works well with other things.
It IS right, of course, that the line MUST be drawn SOMEWHERE.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 10:04 AM |
|
|
In general (at least in France) the list of illness payed back by health care is very strict, not subject to interpretations. Of course infertility is an illness, means one or more organs are not functioning properly and they need medical treatment in order to rectify the problem. The inability to conceive is a symptom indicating that there is something medically wrong.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 11:07 AM |
|
|
No, that's not right. Just because something is not functioning as it should, doesn't mean you become a treatment for free. Lots of examples - all the more so, since fertility/infertility isn't HEALTH-relevant.
Also genetic flaws are not considered illnesses. If it was an illness, it could be CURED (meaning, solving the problem once and for all, restituting fertility. If you are short-sighted, you aren't ill - you have a problem that can be solved by wearing glasses, but not cured. Today there are surgeries that can CORRECT the DEFECT - but I'm not sure whether public healthcare would pay for it.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 11:24 AM |
|
|
|
I am not a doctor so technical issues about are outside my comprehension. However, infertility requires endless medical consultations, tests and analyses then a diagnosis is delivered in which a cause is specified, followed by the proposal of a treatment. This is the common description of an illness. Moreover, in the case of infertility, psychological disorders may occur from it which will bring more and more problems, which could finally cause the family's structure carve up. From what you say any illness that can't be cured isn't one, so AIDS and cancer aren't illnesses...or this isn't true (btw cancer can be genetically transmissible as well). About glasses, short-sight surgeries, they are not payed back by health care in France, along with dentists, psychiatry or alternative medicines, acupuncture etc.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
