A gay marriage proposal...

[Ancalagon]

And for the record, "40 years ago, scientists thought..." is perhaps the laziest, weakest, most anti-intellectual argument I've ever heard. 40 years ago we hadn't even considered mapping the human genome. 40 years ago we had primitive, crude computers by today's standards. 40 years ago we hadn't even settled on a single theory of what happened to the dinosaurs. 40 years ago we thought we had to stop Climate Change or be plunged into a new Ice Age. 40 years ago we didn't know anything about AIDS.

If past generations had said "well shit, over a generation ago we didn't understand..." we'd still think the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. "If God had meant for man to fly, he'd have given us wings." "40 years ago." :bailey:

You seem to not understand.

It's not that 40 years ago Psychologists decided they couldn't 'cure' homosexuality. It's that 40 years ago Psychologists realized that homosexuality is not a disorder.

Here's a good place to try and educate yourself if you care to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker#Experiment

 

[The Question]

You seem to not understand.

It's not that 40 years ago Psychologists decided they couldn't 'cure' homosexuality. It's that 40 years ago Psychologists realized that homosexuality is not a disorder.

And they were wrong. The human brain is a biochemical mechanism. If peoples' livers suddenly started producing mercurochrome, that wouldn't be a "lifestyle choice" -- it'd be a disorder. And it would be treated. But because peoples' brains suddenly start misfiring and causing them to want to fuck the wrong hole on the wrong gender, that isn't? Bullshit. It's a disorder. It's a neurochemical fuckup. It can be fixed.

Unless it's a lifestyle choice, and then orphans shouldn't b e subjected to it.

At which point, it goes back to being hardwired in the brain -- i.e., a neurochemical fuckup -- again.

Until the homos screech that it isn't.

At which point, it goes back to being a lifestyle choice to which children shouldn't be subject.

At which point, et fuckin' cetera. Pick one.

 

[jack]

Well, at least Ancolgon makes sense.

 

[The Question]

Bacon.

 

[Volpone]

Ah. And scientists are infallible. I forgot that part. Hail Science! Praise the Flat Earth!

 

[The Question]

Well, at least Ancolgon makes sense.

By the way, how can you misspell his username? I mean it's right freakin' there, gnome.

 

[Volpone]

Incidentally, back in the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control were researching gun violence. Does that mean gun ownership is a disease? Scientists said so! The only reason they aren't still doing it is because Congress blocked their funding.

There was a time that "political science" meant the scientific study of science, not a political agenda hidden behind the veneer of science.

 

[Ancalagon]

And they were wrong.

No. The DSM is put together by the APA and voted on by the entire membership. The weren't wrong then, and they weren't wrong for the 3 major (DSM III, DSM IV, and DSM 5) and 2 minor (DSM III-R, DSM IV-TR) of the DSM in the 40 years since. All evidence gathered points to homosexuality in and of itself having no negative effect on person, thus, not a disorder.

Did you read the link I posted earlier? Here is is again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker#Experiment

Notice how when the profiles are anonymized, even experts in their respective diagnostic disciplines could not correctly identify gay and straight subjects by their psychological profile.

 

[The Question]

You did notice I said neurochemical, not psychological. Yes, I read your link; your link didn't address what I brought up, which is why I bothered to bring it up. Unless you're religious, you probably understand that human behavior has its basis in the brain, which is essentially a chemically-based processor. Atypical behavior is the result of a malfunction somewhere in that processor. The fact that the stunning state of the 1955 vintage psychologist's art failed to identify a biopsychosocial disorder as a biopsychosocial disorder, or the fact that that 60 year old consensus has never been challenged by researchers since then, is hardly the zenith of proof for your position that it isn't one.

This is why I brought up Body Dysmorphism Disorder earlier; it's a similar processing error, and is very likely to have similar contributing factors and catalysts.

Feusner, J.D.; Neziroglu, F; Wilhelm, S.; Mancusi, L.; Bohon, C. (2010). "What causes BDD: Research findings and a proposed model". Psychiatric Annals 40 (7): 349–355.

 

[jack]

See Ancalagon? He never wants to discuss, just argue.

Stupidly, endlessly about anything. Like it means something.

I'm glad someone around here gets it besides me.

/out.

 

[The Question]

Beagle nipples.

 

[The Question]

See Ancalagon? He never wants to discuss, just argue.

IOW, waaaaaah, he never just agreeeees! Whyyyyy must he have his own opinion! Whyyyyyyyy can't he just agreeeeeee!

Because this is the real world, Gnome, and other people are Not You.

Tell ya what, sport, do what Ancalagon did: buy a message board. That way the nettlesome ones who won't accept your chosen opinion by rote, the ones who don't bow down to disdain, mockery or other varieties of fuckery -- you can just throw 'em out until the only ones left are your fellow travelers.

 

[Ancalagon]

You did notice I said neurochemical, not psychological. Yes, I read your link; your link didn't address what I brought up, which is why I bothered to bring it up. Unless you're religious, you probably understand that human behavior has its basis in the brain, which is essentially a chemically-based processor. Atypical behavior is the result of a malfunction somewhere in that processor. The fact that the stunning state of the 1955 vintage psychologist's art failed to identify a biopsychosocial disorder as a biopsychosocial disorder, or the fact that that 60 year old consensus has never been challenged by researchers since then, is hardly the zenith of proof for your position that it isn't one.

This is why I brought up Body Dysmorphism Disorder earlier; it's a similar processing error, and is very likely to have similar contributing factors and catalysts.

Feusner, J.D.; Neziroglu, F; Wilhelm, S.; Mancusi, L.; Bohon, C. (2010). "What causes BDD: Research findings and a proposed model". Psychiatric Annals 40 (7): 349–355.

Atypical != Disorder.

A preference for using the left hand is atypical.

 

['Gear]

See Ancalagon? He never wants to discuss, just argue.

Stupidly, endlessly about anything. Like it means something.

I'm glad someone around here gets it besides me.

/out.

Hey, can y'all take it down a notch so Jack can keep up?

TIA

 

[Ancalagon]

Hey, can y'all take it down a notch so Jack can keep up?

TIA

Am I the only one that noticed the lack of a comma in his first sentence? Kinda changes the meaning of the entire post.

 

['Gear]

He's too busy licking Egg's asshole clean to be bothered with finer slicing.

Obvious brown-nosing ass-kisser is obvious.

 

[The Question]

Atypical != Disorder.

Fair point. But an atypical behavior which is contrary to one of the body's systems' specific functions does = Disorder.

We're not "designed" -- that's mumbo-jumbo. But evolution has resulted in a form where every part performs a necessary function or is phased out over the course of millennia. If you shat out your ear instead of your butthole, that would be a case of something that is both atypical and a disorder. If your brain is wired to lead you to stick your cock in the garbage disposal -- also a disorder. Thus, if your brain is wired to cause you to be sexually attracted to your own gender -- which attraction doesn't satisfy the purpose of the attraction impulse -- disorder. Same way pica is a disorder. Eating by itself isn't one -- but eating things that aren't food is. Fucking isn't -- but fucking members of the gender you can't procreate with is. Procreation is what your junk is for, not fun. It's only fun because otherwise humans wouldn't prioritize it and the species wouldn't have survived into the present day.

Going back to the evolutionary point -- which at the microscopic level homosexuality is a disorder, it may also be that disorders themselves, at the macroscopic level, are evolutionary mechanisms which are still at work. Too many humans on the planet? Flip the genetic switch so that not all of them are using their genitalia the right way anymore.

 

[The Question]

Addendum: While I still maintain that homosexuality is a disorder which can be treated, that doesn't mean I think it should be treated. Basing my position on the evolutionary tie-in I just described: if that's what's going on, then it should be going on, and we as a species shouldn't interfere with it. My position is simply that it's within our power to interfere with it.

 

[Volpone]

Having St. Castle help you in a discussion is kind of like when my dog helps me rake leaves by bringing me a tennis ball to throw every 8 seconds.

 

[The Question]

There's more to those posts than the username. Just sayin'.