22 Jan 09
Heterosexuality is a psychological condition!You see, that's what I'm talking about. Your argument is that because everything
can be reduced to having no meaning, why should we bother at all.
Sorry it doesn't cut it. Psychology requires a frame of reference and homosexuality
is much further from that frame of reference than heterosexuality.
23 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ck….Your argument is that because everything can be reduced to having no meaning,….
You see, that's what I'm talking about. Your argument is that because everything
can be reduced to having no meaning, why should we bother at all.
Sorry it doesn't cut it. Psychology requires a frame of reference and homosexuality
is much further from that frame of reference than heterosexuality.
What does that mean?
Both these statements are “meaningful” propositions:
1, homosexuality is a psychological condition.
2, heterosexuality is a psychological condition.
-how are either of these two propositions “meaningless”? -they both state a property of a particular sexuality.
“psychological condition” simply means a “mental condition”.
-in fact, you used propositions (1) yourself.
…Psychology requires a frame of reference ..…
What does that mean?
I have studied some psychology and I have never seen in any textbook it said “psychology requires a frame of reference”. What do you mean by “frame of reference” in this context?
In science, “frame of reference” normally has nothing to do with psychology but rather is to do with physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
Could it be that you have subtly misunderstood what is meant by “psychological”?
….and homosexuality is much further from that frame of reference than heterosexuality..…
That would be a meaningless proposition unless you define the meaning of “frame of reference” in this context.
23 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn psychology, there are 2 definitions of 'normality'.
[b]….Your argument is that because everything can be reduced to having no meaning,….
What does that mean?
Both these statements are “meaningful” propositions:
1, homosexuality is a psychological condition.
2, heterosexuality is a psychological condition.
-how are either of these two propositions “meaningless”? -they both state a pro ...[text shortened]... a meaningless proposition unless you define the meaning of “frame of reference” in this context.[/b]
The first being that of statistical significance. I think in this case you would
agree that with regard to sexual behaviour, homosexuals would be on the
outskirts of the bell curve.
The second definition is based on whether a particular psychological condition
is subjectively healthy. Whether homosexuality should be considered a paraphyllia
is still up for debate. Homosexuals do experience a greater number of social disorders,
including a 13 fold increase in teenage suicides and greater risk of depression and
similar disorders (from a study conducted in sexually tolerant Holland).
I have a question for you, if you don't find it too personal. Do you consider homosexual
acts to be more or less healthy than heterosexual acts?
23 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ck….In psychology, there are 2 definitions of 'normality'. ….
In psychology, there are 2 definitions of 'normality'.
The first being that of statistical significance. I think in this case you would
agree that with regard to sexual behaviour, homosexuals would be on the
outskirts of the bell curve.
The second definition is based on whether a particular psychological condition
is subjectively healthy. Whether homo personal. Do you consider homosexual
acts to be more or less healthy than heterosexual acts?
Firstly, I didn’t ask you what you meant by 'normality', I ask you what you meant by “frame of reference” -are you implying here that you think the two mean the same thing?
…The first being that of statistical significance. I think in this case you would
agree that with regard to sexual behaviour, homosexuals would be on the
outskirts of the bell curve.
..…
Please point out to us a scientific study that concludes that “homosexuals are abnormal”….
….The second definition is based on whether a particular psychological condition
is subjectively healthy...…
A “psychological condition” is just that regardless of whether it is “subjectively healthy” or “subjectively unhealthy” so I fail to see the relevance here for we ALL have “psychological conditions”!
…Homosexuals do experience a greater number of social disorders, .…
It does not logically follow from that that homosexuality is a “disorder” (if that is what you are implying? ) any more than it would logically follow from “heterosexuals experience a greater number of social disorders” that heterosexuality is a “disorder”.
-humans do seem to experience a greater number of social disorders and probably much more so than most other animals such as fish etc -so being human is a “disorder”?
23 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]'normality' is a frame of reference, albeit a hypothetical one.
[b]….In psychology, there are 2 definitions of 'normality'. ….
Firstly, I didn’t ask you what you meant by 'normality', I ask you what you meant by “frame of reference” -are you implying here that you think the two mean the same thing?
…The first being that of statistical significance. I think in this case you would
agree that with re ...[text shortened]... bably much more so than most other animals such as fish etc -so being human is a “disorder”?
I am not saying that the two are the same but that we are using 'normality' as
a frame of reference on this particular occasion.
The fact that you are avoiding my questions and disappearing into semantics
reflects your own inability to answer truthfully.
According to the DSM-IV-TR, behaviors may be considered abnormal if they are associated with disability, personal distress, the violation of social norms, or dysfunction.
Do you consider the act of homosexuality to be in violation of social norms?[i]
23 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck….behaviors may be considered abnormal if they are associated with disability, personal distress, the violation of social norms, or dysfunction.
'normality' is a frame of reference, albeit a hypothetical one.
I am not saying that the two are the same but that we are using 'normality' as
a frame of reference on this particular occasion.
The fact that you are avoiding my questions and disappearing into semantics
reflects your own inability to answer truthfully.
According to the DSM-IV- ...[text shortened]... unction.
Do you consider the act of homosexuality to be in violation of social norms?[/i][/b]
….
If I am not careful, my heterosexuality may lead to a unwanted pregnancy and this would cause “personal distress” and also social problems -so heterosexuality may be considered abnormal?
The act of going to sleep is a behaviour that results in temporary “dysfunction” as a result of loss of consciousness -so going to sleep is abnormal?
-I think your definition of “abnormal” behaviour is a bit vague because it is not possible to clearly define such a subjective word.
…Do you consider the act of homosexuality to be in violation of social norms?..…
no.
24 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat is correct, which is why use statistical frames of reference.
[b]….behaviors may be considered abnormal if they are associated with disability, personal distress, the violation of social norms, or dysfunction.
….
If I am not careful, my heterosexuality may lead to a unwanted pregnancy and this would cause “personal distress” and also social problems -so heterosexuality may be considered abnormal?
...[text shortened]...
…Do you consider the act of homosexuality to be in violation of social norms?..…
no.[/b]
A doctor can refuse to treat a patient with no money in America and leave
them to bleed to death on the sidewalk without reprieve. Whilst a man unable
to pay his bills because his wife is sick is sent to jail. Fair? No, but it's the law.
You are aware that the 'practice' of homosexuality is illegal in nearly half of
the countries of the world aren't you?
Are you saying that psychology endorses criminality?
A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation.
Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world;[3] in 40 of these, only male-male sex is outlawed.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
edit. Question for the moderators. Will you delete this post if I talk about anal sex
with respect to homosexuality? You deleted my humouress post on women's sex
toys, surely this is far more risque?
My guess is, no.
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ck….You are aware that the 'practice' of homosexuality is illegal in nearly half of
That is correct, which is why use statistical frames of reference.
A doctor can refuse to treat a patient with no money in America and leave
them to bleed to death on the sidewalk without reprieve. Whilst a man unable
to pay his bills because his wife is sick is sent to jail. Fair? No, but it's the law.
You are aware that the 'practice' of homosexua d my humouress post on women's sex
toys, surely this is far more risque?
My guess is, no.
the countries of the world aren't you? ….
Yes. And I think for a behaviour that doesn’t necessarily lead to any victims (and doesn’t on most occasions just like the 'practice' of heterosexuality doesn't) to be made illegal is just showing irrational idiotically arbitrary intolerance.
…Are you saying that psychology endorses criminality? ..…
No -at least not in countries that irrational idiotically arbitrary define certain forms of behaviour that do not necessarily lead to victims as a ‘crime’.
….A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does NOT lead to procreation. ...…(my emphasis0
-using their own totally arbitrary and baseless criterion of a “sex crime”, that would mean that a heterosexual couple that have sex using contraception have performed a “sex crime” because, their use of contraception would mean their behaviour does NOT lead to procreation.
-the same goes for any a heterosexual couple that have sex when one/both is infertile! -do you believe that that makes it a “crime”?
24 Jan 09
Playing baseball isn't just about playing the match, it requires practice.
Homosexuality is not practicing for procreation, it is purely hedonistic.
I'm not endorsing antiquated religious law, on the contrary just trying
to show you the use of a frame of reference when dealing with a
particular issue. Well done for sticking to your ground on the that one
at least. Of course psychology endorses criminality. That's the whole
point of the exercise isn't it?
Just to restate my position on this one, I'm not attacking homosexuals
as such, I think they're just people like the rest of us. (present company
excluded), I'm attacking the close minded nature in which we address
our views on homosexuality and I'm attacking the acts of having sex
with a man's anas that homosexuality deams to call 'normal'.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…Homosexuality is not practicing for procreation, it is purely hedonistic. ..…
Playing baseball isn't just about playing the match, it requires practice.
Homosexuality is not practicing for procreation, it is purely hedonistic.
I'm not endorsing antiquated religious law, on the contrary just trying
to show you the use of a frame of reference when dealing with a
particular issue. Well done for sticking to your ground on the that ...[text shortened]... the acts of having sex
with a man's anas that homosexuality deams to call 'normal'.
Is heterosexuality always practiced for procreation and it is NEVER the case that it is done purely for pleasure?
….Of course psychology endorses criminality. That's the whole
point of the exercise isn't it?
….
Err, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
….and I'm attacking the acts of having sex
with a man's anas that homosexuality deems to call 'normal'.
...…
Does that mean you wouldn’t attack other forms of homosexual acts?
25 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWell, I'm speaking for myself here but I would like to put it about
[b]…Homosexuality is not practicing for procreation, it is purely hedonistic. ..…
Is heterosexuality always practiced for procreation and it is NEVER the case that it is done purely for pleasure?
….Of course psychology endorses criminality. That's the whole
point of the exercise isn't it?
….
Err, no.
http://en.wikipedia.or 'normal'.
...…[/b]
Does that mean you wouldn’t attack other forms of homosexual acts?[/b]
a bit before getting hitched to one woman. I think that's part of
our nature. So yes, it is all a bit of a 'warm up' for procreation.
Re: Psychology, that's a whole other thread I'm afraid.
And yes, I am only attacking that particular aspect of homosexuality.
It's gross and unhygenic! I mean, can you think of anywhere worse
to put it??
That's right, beneath the venear of uber-clean bathrooms and fancy
perfumes, there's the stinch of public toilets. Normal you say?
25 Jan 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…I am only attacking that particular aspect of homosexuality.
Well, I'm speaking for myself here but I would like to put it about
a bit before getting hitched to one woman. I think that's part of
our nature. So yes, it is all a bit of a 'warm up' for procreation.
Re: Psychology, that's a whole other thread I'm afraid.
And yes, I am only attacking that particular aspect of homosexuality.
It's gross and unhygen ...[text shortened]... an bathrooms and fancy
perfumes, there's the stinch of public toilets. Normal you say?
.…
And also that same particular aspect of heterosexuality?
-if yes, then it is not specifically homosexuality you are attacking but rather that particular aspect of sexuality? ( -not really making any point here nor trying to -just curious)
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonListen ANDREW. I have to spend the rest of my life without friends or cause
[b]…I am only attacking that particular aspect of homosexuality.
.…
And also that same particular aspect of heterosexuality?
-if yes, then it is not specifically homosexuality you are attacking but rather that particular aspect of sexuality? ( -not really making any point here nor trying to -just curious)[/b]
because some little homosexual wanted me to know what it felt like when I'm
passed out from drink. It was the first sexual experience of my life, shortly after
my father left me and I didn't take too it welll.
So why don't you go on and preach to me how inocculous it is, I'm all f*****g ears.
edit. I know I dwell on this too much and it's not any particular persons fault but
I will not be told that homosexuals are innocent. Not at all.