Church posts video of Gay Exorcism; Outrage ensues

[Flagg]

well i know im white and if my daughter came in with anything but a white man thier relationship would not last long . . if god had wanted all the same color we would be the same color . . but hey you want to call me thick knock yourself out m8 . call me racist if you want . dont care .

EXCEPT God had nothing to do with the colour of races and it might interest you to know that Jesus WAS NOT white. Inter-relationships are good because sure at some point there will have been so much mixing that the human race will become ONE COLOUR. Seeing the state of the world today, thats a good thing to look forward to.

[Flagg]

You know it pains me to hear people like you CountryBoy but at least your honest. My sister and brother in law are the same, saying their daughters will never date a black man when they are older. It's so beyond ignorant but what they don't realise is that if that is what their daughters will do they will be more resolute to do it. What's more important, your daughters happiness or your stupid pride?

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

EXCEPT God had nothing to do with the colour of races and it might interest you to know that Jesus WAS NOT white. Inter-relationships are good because sure at some point there will have been so much mixing that the human race will become ONE COLOUR. Seeing the state of the world today, thats a good thing to look forward to.

You know it pains me to hear people like you CountryBoy but at least your honest. My sister and brother in law are the same, saying their daughters will never date a black man when they are older. It's so beyond ignorant but what they don't realise is that if that is what their daughters will do they will be more resolute to do it. What's more important, your daughters happiness or your stupid pride?

Bingo!

[countrybhoy]

You know it pains me to hear people like you CountryBoy but at least your honest. My sister and brother in law are the same, saying their daughters will never date a black man when they are older. It's so beyond ignorant but what they don't realise is that if that is what their daughters will do they will be more resolute to do it. What's more important, your daughters happiness or your stupid pride?

m8 not just black hell dont tar me with this i hate black people thing. any thing but white or wrong i just believe we should not mix races. oh and i know jesus was not white he was an jewish arab .one friend of mine is black. and on my wife side with arabs well half breeds the husband is an iraqi so i guess the kids are half iraqi .as for one color being a good thing i think you might find there are a few of us that dont agree thats why this world is a beautiful place so many different cultures why change it to one .

[JiGGaMaN]

sorry prof. didnt know we had mr Steven Hawkins on the form. guess im only missin the red color on my neck .

i just got finished recommending a bulking cycle for him.


i really wish i was born like 1,000 years in the future. the fact that i've read half the shit i did in this thread makes us look like we are still living in the stone age.

[Tock]

I dont have to "hate gay people" to believe based on the facts and definitions at hand that it would be classified as a diseased state.

I didn't say that you hated gay people. You seemed to say that because you were heterosexual, you were normal. However, since I am gay, I am abnormal, and consequently, "diseased." Did I get that right?

[SMCengineer]

Well Tock, you know my position on this as a libertarian, people can live however they want. However, by concluding that homosexuality is not a choice, and something you are born as, then you must take along with that the scientific rammifications. Anything deviating from the norm, is considered a diseased state, abnormality, malfunction, etc. I dont see anything wrong with this conclusion, other than it might not 'feel good,' or would be politically unpopular, but I am really a man of science, and could give two flying fu**s about political correctness and whether or not something hurts someones feelings. I have several gay friends, and dont view them any differently than my straight friends, nor do I find their lifestyle to be morally reprehensible. I have learned that nature provides many things which on the surface can appear to be a negative, and are actually a positive. For instance, the fact that many savonts and extremely intelligent people have a degree of Downs Syndrome. It is by definition a diseased state, although these people are capable of doing miraculous things. But please, do not try to misrepresent the scientific rammifcations of deciding that being gay is not a choice, just because it might not sound good, or hurt your feelings. It is what it is.

"a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment."

I believe most people in this thread are making the false assumption that the terms diseased state and abnormal are deragatory terms or that they are necessarily bigoted/hurtful designations. When, in fact, the opposite is true.

With that said however, would it be proper to classify homosexuality as a diseased state or abnormal when vital physiological functions, namely reproduction, are not actually interepted? For example, the desire or need to sleep with the same sex does not prevent one from reproducing if the need arose. Indeed, the function still exists, but a hormonal imbalance simply sends a false signal and the sex organs proper functions are merely dormant albeit remaining.

[Flagg]

I didn't say that you hated gay people. You seemed to say that because you were heterosexual, you were normal. However, since I am gay, I am abnormal, and consequently, "diseased." Did I get that right?

If you look at it in a purely scientific and evolutionary point of view, being homosexual is detrimental to a species continued survival. If it was the norm, don't you think there would be a far greater percentage of homosexual people in our population?

[thegodfather]

I believe most people in this thread are making the false assumption that the terms diseased state and abnormal are deragatory terms or that they are necessarily bigoted/hurtful designations. When, in fact, the opposite is true.

With that said however, would it be proper to classify homosexuality as a diseased state or abnormal when vital physiological functions, namely reproduction, are not actually interepted? For example, the desire or need to sleep with the same sex does not prevent one from reproducing if the need arose. Indeed, the function still exists, but a hormonal imbalance simply sends a false signal and the sex organs proper functions are merely dormant albeit remaining.

People affected with Trisomy 21 (Downs Syndrome) are still able to reproduce, and have done so. The issue is not whether the vital physiological functions are present, but rather the cause of the sexual disposition. If, as DSM as stated, homosexuality is caused by a gene in the DNA of humans, then this would be a "diseased" gene, since it causes an orientation significantly contrary to the established norm. If it were instead just a matter of preference, it would not be much different than say, preferring to bang asians over caucasians, or liking whips and chains over normal sex.

Using the definitions we have today, and the one I have posted, if there is a gay gene, then it could rightly and accurately be classified as a disease. It is just very politically unpopular to do such, however I dont think that science should start changing definitions and making exceptions, just because it might hurt some peoples feelings. If you claim that homosexuality is not a choice, and rather a trait caused by a gene, then you have to accept the additional rammifications of that.

I dont see how that designation changes the plight of gay people in any possible way? I am still for full marriage rights and all other rights that every other human being enjoys in the United States. Just as I dont think people with cancer should be precluded from marrying, I dont think that gay people should be precluded either.

[Tock]

Depends on how you look at it when you look at it.

In times of overpopulation, homosexuality could be seen as a constructive adaptation, not detrimental to a species' survival.

And, in response to your second comment, a certain percent of homosexuality in many species is in fact normal.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...y-animals.html


In any event, this planet's ecosystem would be much better off with fewer humans, rather than the go-for-broke baby-making policies common to so many 3rd world nations. That's where homosexuality is clearly a good thing. Some countries take a dim view of gay sex, and nations such as China prefer to punish both heterosexual couples who have more than one child as well as gay couples who have no children at all. Other countries practice female infanticide, with the result that over time, there are many more adult males than adult females for coupling, yet homosexuality is banned.

Ya, from a purely evolutionary point of view, I'd say that human's inclination to overpopulate this planet, overconsume its resources, and overpollute its lands and oceans, will sooner or later result in uncomfortable circumstances. But since humans can't find ways to control reproduction, as a species, we'll end up f***ing ourselves to death.

If you look at it in a purely scientific and evolutionary point of view, being homosexual is detrimental to a species continued survival. If it was the norm, don't you think there would be a far greater percentage of homosexual people in our population?

[Tock]

Or, it could be an adaptive change to ensure survival of the species as a whole.

If, as DSM as stated, homosexuality is caused by a gene in the DNA of humans, then this would be a "diseased" gene, since it causes an orientation significantly contrary to the established norm.

[thegodfather]

Or, it could be an adaptive change to ensure survival of the species as a whole.

That is exactly what cancer is. It isn't nice to say, but cancer is evolution. It is a mutation within a cell, causing it to divide erratically and to perform certain functions in a different way. When it works to the organisms advantage, the person has no idea and goes on living the rest of their lives. If a mutation occurs which is not favorable to the organism, it dies, as we see with the many victims of cancer. It does not change the fact that definitionally it is a disease.

[Flagg]

Depends on how you look at it when you look at it.

In times of overpopulation, homosexuality could be seen as a constructive adaptation, not detrimental to a species' survival.

And, in response to your second comment, a certain percent of homosexuality in many species is in fact normal.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...y-animals.html


In any event, this planet's ecosystem would be much better off with fewer humans, rather than the go-for-broke baby-making policies common to so many 3rd world nations. That's where homosexuality is clearly a good thing. Some countries take a dim view of gay sex, and nations such as China prefer to punish both heterosexual couples who have more than one child as well as gay couples who have no children at all. Other countries practice female infanticide, with the result that over time, there are many more adult males than adult females for coupling, yet homosexuality is banned.

Ya, from a purely evolutionary point of view, I'd say that human's inclination to overpopulate this planet, overconsume its resources, and overpollute its lands and oceans, will sooner or later result in uncomfortable circumstances. But since humans can't find ways to control reproduction, as a species, we'll end up f***ing ourselves to death.

It was quite an interesting read, and I can see why it could be viewed as means of stopping a species from exceeding it's carrying capacity but you have to realise that humans have far exceeded their carrying capacity due to the lifestyle we have and medical technology, the only other species with a high birthrate and low deathrate are viruses. I will agree that homophobia does seem isolated to the human race, after all...a male has a better chance at spreading his genes if there are less males to compete with. However I do wonder if in the case of the two male penguins raising chicks, if they are homosexual. Some animals will adopt and nurture young that are not their own, in zoo's there have been instances of pigs raising tiger cubs. As to why evolution hasn't elimated homosexuality, well...prehaps you are right. Prehaps it is a controlling mechanism to prevent over-population.

[Tock]

There's a big difference between cancer cells on skin or lung tissue, and gay people in a society.

Cancer is a disease. It spreads throughout the host organism until it ultimately kills it.

Homosexuality is a variation of sexuality found in animals and humans, not a disease. It is entirely without the unhappy consequence that accompanies cancer.

That is exactly what cancer is. It isn't nice to say, but cancer is evolution. It is a mutation within a cell, causing it to divide erratically and to perform certain functions in a different way. When it works to the organisms advantage, the person has no idea and goes on living the rest of their lives. If a mutation occurs which is not favorable to the organism, it dies, as we see with the many victims of cancer. It does not change the fact that definitionally it is a disease.

Your definitions are too narrow. Not every mutation is a disease. Sometimes it is, more often it's a harmless variation. Homosexuality is just that--a harmless variation. An inclination for gay sex does not preclude an individual from procreation. Lots of gays and lesbians have children.
Lots of heterosexuals don't have children. Some because they're too ugly to find a mate (is ugliness that results in not having children a disease?) and some because of religious reasons (is a mind that makes a vow of celibacy diseased?).

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. But I'm sure you will understand that people won't thank you for making derogatory statements ("You're diseased because you're gay") about them based on personal characteristics.

[DSM4Life]

When i start looking at divorce rates and abandoned child from you so called "normal" people i tend to believe you are the defective one.

[thegodfather]

When i start looking at divorce rates and abandoned child from you so called "normal" people i tend to believe you are the defective one.

I always get a good laugh when a politician talks about the "sanctity of marriage."

Anyway, I see your point Tock. However, I dont believe anything I said was disparaging. I was arguing a definitional point, not in anyway attempting to make disparaging or hurtful remarks, as I view all people as individuals regardless of any number of collective factors that we try to use to group people now days. The point of the conversation was whether or not it would definitionally be classified as a disorder/disease if caused by a genetic trait.