One simple sticker ruined this 240 . . .

[AZhitman]

Maine, we gotta hang out. I'd considered entering this debate, but you're doing a damn fine job of representing.

Someone said, Why can't people accept homosexuals as sexual beings that simply like something different than heterosexuals, rather than "sexual devients"?

I'll tell you why. Because the minute you take that position, you have to then accept the person who derives satisfaction from "displaying" themselves to others. Then it stands to reason you will have to accept those who prefer sex with minors. Then you have to accept the bestialists (?)... They all "simply like something different", as you put it. Do you see how this works?

STOP accepting everything the world throws at you! That small voice you hear inside you that tells you, "Hey, something's not right here" (when you are exposed to something damaging or aberrant) was put there for a reason.

When the hell are people gonna stop letting MTV and HBO tell them how things should be?

[MaineExport]

Maine, we gotta hang out. I'd considered entering this debate, but you're doing a damn fine job of representing.

Someone said, Why can't people accept homosexuals as sexual beings that simply like something different than heterosexuals, rather than "sexual devients"?

I'll tell you why. Because the minute you take that position, you have to then accept the person who derives satisfaction from "displaying" themselves to others. Then it stands to reason you will have to accept those who prefer sex with minors. Then you have to accept the bestialists (?)... They all "simply like something different", as you put it. Do you see how this works?

STOP accepting everything the world throws at you! That small voice you hear inside you that tells you, "Hey, something's not right here" (when you are exposed to something damaging or aberrant) was put there for a reason.

When the hell are people gonna stop letting MTV and HBO tell them how things should be?

thanks AZ.... we should hang out for sure!

and your point is pure gold. I suppose we should accept the fact that flashers derive pleasure from exposing themselves to children... that's what they like, I guess we have to accept and welcome it. What about serial killers.... they enjoy an 'alternative' lifestyle.... I guess we have to accept that too.

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by maineimport "]It's not a 'position' K-car. This is the language they use in THEIR literature.

Cite it.

Fair enough... let me get to a computer with a scanner, and I will gladly oblige.

[Daunttless]

If I had a scanner I would, its in my Psych Book sitting next to me.

[Repo Man]

thanks AZ.... we should hang out for sure!

and your point is pure gold. I suppose we should accept the fact that flashers derive pleasure from exposing themselves to children... that's what they like, I guess we have to accept and welcome it. What about serial killers.... they enjoy an 'alternative' lifestyle.... I guess we have to accept that too.

Hell, it looks to me like Indiana is about halfway between Maine and Arizona. You guys could use Indy as your rally point and I'll buy the beer! :thinker

[MarkEmark]

AZ---very well put...It's true, so many damn people, so accepting and embracing of everything. I think we need to get back to a early 1960's mentality. Now while I can't by any means vouch for the good aspects or negative aspects of this decade, it just seems to me, through my listening to adults who grew up/graduated highschool around then, the "baby boomer" generation, (my parents among them,) if you will, it seemed like such a pleasant time to live in--much more so than this crappy liberal age. Just look at a public highschool year book from 1969/70. The people all look well dressed, respectable, presentable people, and look not only older, but more mature, and more responsible people, and in fact they were. Much more was expected of them back then--chores were a necessary part of family life. Early on, the kids learned to first work hard if they wished to have fun outside of home, and learned that studying came before success. The dad worked, the mom usually stayed home and raised the kids, cleaned the house, cooked the meals. The kids went to school to learn, not to slack off and be ***holes. The kids were generally well behaved, they didn't talk back or argue with their parents, otherwise, they'd get a swift slap upside the head. While hitting your children wasn't encouraged, it certainly did, in my opinion, do a great deal to the kids growing up. The kids growing up in the 50's/60's wouldn't dare doing half the things that the kids do today--talking back, not listening to their parents, being disrespectful, etc. The girls weren't a bunch of slutty whores in the highschool who bragged about how many times they had sex the night before, (I hear this on a regular basis during daily conversation) they were decent girls, with high morals. Girls dated, not "hooked up" with people, and only when they truly loved the person did they lose their virginity. (Again, I'm generalizing pretty liberally here...)people went to church every sunday, and to their grandparents house for sunday dinner. Each person was a distinct individual. Bobby fisher down the street was the best catcher on the baseball team, Joany Sue was the best writer of the class--none of this bull**** patronizing of people saying that everyone is good at everything, people understood the large difference between and unique characteristics between themselves, and these decisive characteristics gave them a personality of substance. The kids didn't have to be ***holes to have a good time. The kids new what was expected of them, and more or less, did what the had to do. Now I am by no means labeling this early 60's decade as a Utopia, but I can definitely say I'd MUCH rather live in that era than now. No internet, no cell phones controlling and corrupting the youth. They used their imagination and wits for fun. They played outside, they made treeforts, they tinkered with go-kart engines. They didn't sit inside, watch tv and make the tv give them imaginative ideas; they could entertain themselves, and for hours. I'm glad myself that growing up (still in the process of, I'm only 16), that I was never bought video games, and never really watched a great deal of TV--I played outside in the yard, had neighborhood friends, made treeforts, etc. I'm glad the technology of the age didn't corrupt me at such a young age, as it is doing now. There were no crazy morons back then, in fact, if you wanted to bring your shotgun to school because you were leaving early to go hunting, you could--you just left it in the principal's office. Today, no one would DARE of doing that at any type of academic institution, because kids are untrustworthy and irrational these days. I blame it on the degradation of the family life. Parents getting divorced left and right, never staying faithful to their partners, being in the MAJORITY when they are divorced, not being looked down on when they break the sacred vow, things like this in the present age ruin society. If these people were brought up understanding what love is and knowing how to associate with people without falling back on common-place psychiatrists, then perhaps the numerous divorces wouldn't transpire. In the woman's quest for equality, the children today find themselves being increasingly left at home, with no real discipline tactics or any type of earnest time to teach the kids what's right and wrong, and about moral and ethical responsibilities. When kids screwed up back in the day, they were heavily chastized and learned their lesson. Today, kids are taught and encouraged to blame their shortcomings not on they folly, lack of ambition or motivation, but on made up diseases and whatever scape goat pleases their situation. Take for example ADD and ADHD. Did the disease exist in 1966? Hell NO! But, the disease exists now a day, and every other kid and his brother has ADD, relying on drugs to succeed in life, learning to always be a dependent and never an independent that takes responsibility for his or her own action. Parents love to use these made-up diseases to label their kids with, to cover up their own horribe flaws in parenting--Oh, my kid does bad in school not because I never taught him how important school was or punished him severely for doing bad, but because he has Attention Deficit Disorder. Now I supply him with a bottomless stock of pills and drugs to control his behavior, and now I teach him that he is not responsible for his behavior, something else is! Damn these people! These kids don't have ADD--all kids are hyper! They are kids, afterall. But, any person can consciously control whether or not they decide to pay attention, put some effort into work, etc. Kid's don't need Ritalin and other drugs, they need a good smack up the head and a verbal berating for their failing ways! I long to live in an era where good grades were commendable, not "geeky," church was expected, family life was more intimate and satisfying, and people were genuinely more honest, trustworthy, and hardworking.I could go on for hours about this, but I've already thoroughly hijacked the thread.On the note of the other part of the thread hijacking, guns, I agree. The government is slowly taking away guns, so when the time does come that we need a serious government revolution, they GOVERNMENT will have our only means of defending ourselves! I myself only have a Marlin .22 with a 4x32 Scope (first gun, my grandpa was a police man and an expert marksmen; it was expected that I'd get a gun at the age of 15). Well, to go off on an even bigger tangent, two of my cats have disappeared in the last month, even though my parents have owned outdoor cats for the last 20 years, with none of their previous cats ever disappearing. Well, its obvious that people didn't adopt them, but rather wild animals eating them. The thing is, both of our cats disappeared in broad daylight, so that sort of ruled out coyotes, unless rabid coyotes. Well I got out of the shower the other morning to see a huge 25lb fisher walking in broad daylight in our backyard. If no one knows, fishers are considered to be very vicious and carnivorous animals, easily eating 6 pound house-cats. So I got the .22, and dropped him with a shot to the neck as he was walking away. End of story, one down to prevent some danger from my last cat from being devoured. The reason all these animals are so close? Some moron a neighborhood away completely leveled a big part of the forest, pushing all the natural inhabitants out to find new sources of food. A pack of deer were in my back yard in regular daylight yesterday. Bastards and their ruining of forests for their own personal gain. It's some 75 year old broad doing the destruction, and she'll be dead in 5 years, but the ruined forest will last a life time. Shame on her!Sorry for the horrible, horrible rambling. Just needed to get that stuff off my chest!

[AZhitman]

WOO HOO!

Mark, you are my hero. 16 years old? Damn, son. You've made at least one old dawg real proud.

No need to say more - I think I might even move this one out in the light so more folks can read it.

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by maineimport "]It's not a 'position' K-car. This is the language they use in THEIR literature.

Cite it.

Well, I can't get my hands on a scanner, so I will type it out myself, and provide the citation that is listed here for you to go ahead and check up on.

The following is an excerpt from an article written for the AMA, by Dr. DeAnn K Gauthier. The article is entitled Bug Chasers, and the Gift of Death:

"The sociology of sexual deviance traditionally includes prostitution, homosexuality, and pornography (Clinard and Meier 1998; Forsyth abd Fournet 1997; Little 1983, 1995). Stripping, transvestitism, and voyerism are sometimes included as sexual deviance (Forsyth 1992, 1996; Forsyth and Deshotels 1997, 1998; Fournet, FOrsyth, and Schramn 1998)"

It goes on to explain other forms of sexual deviance, and they are basically ANYTHING that is not male/female vaginal intercourse. It does not condemn these activities, it is an informative, explorational article that I found while researching for a Criminal Justice class. If you wish to check my sources I will glady provide the works cited that pertain to the above references. They are quite lengthy, but if you doubt me I would take the effort to type them if it will asuage your concerns.

[blodulv]

I'll tell you why. Because the minute you take that position, you have to then accept the person who derives satisfaction from "displaying" themselves to others. Then it stands to reason you will have to accept those who prefer sex with minors. Then you have to accept the bestialists (?)... They all "simply like something different", as you put it. Do you see how this works?

STOP accepting everything the world throws at you! That small voice you hear inside you that tells you, "Hey, something's not right here" (when you are exposed to something damaging or aberrant) was put there for a reason.

When the hell are people gonna stop letting MTV and HBO tell them how things should be?

Slippery slope argument. The activities you list have an actual harm to society; they'll never be accepted except by those who practice them.

Where is the harm to society in homosexuality? If practiced by two people (guys or girls) and no one knows, there's absolutely no harm that I can see. If they decide to let people know that they're homosexual, I still don't see any harm.

A sidenote on the stickers argument: Straight people proclaim their straightness through stickers and other emblems as well. Naked chick mudflaps, things like that. Big Johnson shirts. Etc. I'm guessing the percentage is higher with people displaying their homosexuality because they feel that they're persecuted, and it's an act of rebellion for them. It's probably also therapeutic.

There's a definite difference in accepting things that cause harm and accepting things that are harmless.

[MaineExport]

There's a definite difference in accepting things that cause harm and accepting things that are harmless.

ah... harmless to whom? It's all a matter of perspective.

[blodulv]

ah... harmless to whom? It's all a matter of perspective.

Can you show me a way that two people engaged in a same-sex relationship could be harmful to themselves or others?

I'm not baiting you, it's an honest question.

[MaineExport]

Can you show me a way that two people engaged in a same-sex relationship could be harmful to themselves or others?

I'm not baiting you, it's an honest question.

Yes... even if they keep it to themselves... yes. And by the way, this is an AMA artice as well:

"Background: It has been suggested that homosexuality is associated with psychiatric morbidity. This study examined differences between heterosexually and homosexually active subjects in 12-month and lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders in a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 7076; aged 18-64 years).

Methods: Data were collected in face-to-face interviews, using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Classification as heterosexual or homosexual was based on reported sexual behavior in the preceding year. Five thousand nine hundred ninety-eight (84.8%) of the total sample could be classified: 2.8% of 2878 men and 1.4% of 3120 women had had same-sex partners. Differences in prevalence rates were tested by logistic regression analyses, controlling for demographics.

Results: Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.54-5.57) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.44-4.74) than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (OR = 4.05; 95% CI = 1.56-10.47) than heterosexual women. Lifetime prevalence rates reflect identical differences, except for mood disorders, which were more frequently observed in homosexual than in heterosexual women (OR = 2.41; 95% CI = 1.26-4.63). The proportion of persons with 1 or more diagnoses differed only between homosexual and heterosexual women (lifetime OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.31-5.19). More homosexual than heterosexual persons had 2 or more disorders during their lifetimes (homosexual men: OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 1.66-4.41; homosexual women: OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.07-4.09).

Conclusion: The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.(Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:85-91.)Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD, Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands"

Fair enough?

[blodulv]

Yes... even if they keep it to themselves... yes. And by the way, this is an AMA artice as well:

... snip ...

Fair enough?

What you just told me is that homosexuals have a higher prevalance of mental disorders and substance abuse.

This is based on 80 homosexual males and 44 homosexual females.

You are making an assertion about homosexuality based on 124 people.

124 Dutch people. Do you have any idea what the mental environment is like there? I don't.

The AMA clipping you quoted doesn't mention a possible cause for the increased number of disorders or drug use, but I have one possible cause. Could it be because of intolerance and persecution?

You found a correlation, yes, but that's it. The article doesn't say whether being a homosexual causes increased disorders and substance abuse or whether homosexuals experience more pressure, intolerance, and persecution from society and thus are more likely to turn to substance abuse or develop psychiatric disorders.

Even homosexuals who aren't out of the closet (and thus can't be openly persecuted) still feel it when their friends say "gay" or "h0m0" and things of that nature, and when people openly speak out against homosexuality. I'm sure they feel that they are made out to be evil.

Let's say there's a colony of homosexuals with little contact from the outside world. Let's say they populate by artificial insemination and/or adoption or something, because I know someone will ask. Do you think that they would experience more substance abuse problems than the average Joe or less?

I'd wager it would be about the same.

[MaineExport]

What you just told me is that homosexuals have a higher prevalance of mental disorders and substance abuse.

This is based on 80 homosexual males and 44 homosexual females.

You are making an assertion about homosexuality based on 124 people.

124 Dutch people. Do you have any idea what the mental environment is like there? I don't.

you asked a question... I gave an answer.

The AMA clipping you quoted doesn't mention a possible cause for the increased number of disorders or drug use, but I have one possible cause. Could it be because of intolerance and persecution?

You found a correlation, yes, but that's it. The article doesn't say whether being a homosexual causes increased disorders and substance abuse or whether homosexuals experience more pressure, intolerance, and persecution from society and thus are more likely to turn to substance abuse or develop psychiatric disorders.

Even homosexuals who aren't out of the closet (and thus can't be openly persecuted) still feel it when their friends say "gay" or "h0m0" and things of that nature, and when people openly speak out against homosexuality. I'm sure they feel that they are made out to be evil.

Did I ever claim ANY of these thing you are implying?

Let's say there's a colony of homosexuals with little contact from the outside world. Let's say they populate by artificial insemination and/or adoption or something, because I know someone will ask. Do you think that they would experience more substance abuse problems than the average Joe or less?

I'd wager it would be about the same.

Now you're creating a world of make-believe. This study was based on the REAL world. Neither the article or I have implied in ANYWAY that being gay causes metal disorder. It is the implications that it carries with it, that cause the problems. What part of that do you not understand.

O yeah.... you REALLY weren't trying to bait me!

:rolleyes Whatever! If you genuinely wanted to know, you wouldn't have offered up this defense. Just a thoght.

[blodulv]

:rolleyes Whatever! If you genuinely wanted to know, you wouldn't have offered up this defense. Just a thoght.

... I asked if you had a REAL HARM.

Had you provided one I would have concdeded it happily.

Instead, you offered up something that said that being homosexual carried with it increased substance abuse and mental disorders, with NO REASON AS TO WHY THAT IS. All I was doing was trying to explain that point. Sorry if I went off-track, but I was trying to offer reasons as to why that survey had gotten those results.

The "implications" you speak of depend on the cause of the results, and since the survey itself does not speak of a cause, it can't have any implications.

I.E., the survey does not explicitly state that being homosexual causes harm to anyone, which is the specific piece of evidence I asked for. It states that there is a correlation between substance abuse, mental disorders, and homosexuality, but does not specify a cause! To prove to anyone that being homosexual did indeed cause harm you would have to find that the cause itself was their sexual preference. As it is, the cause of the results in that survey could be anything.

As for my thought experiment, don't dismiss it out of hand by saying that it's not based in "reality". Thought experiments are a vital tool for understanding both social and scientific problems. (Heard of Schroedinger's Cat?) I was merely trying to show you that without an external force acting upon them, homosexuals would have comparable drug abuse and mental disorder percentages to heterosexuals.

Next time I'll try persuading an audience that understands correlations and cause/effect relationships.

[MaineExport]

The "implications" you speak of depend on the cause of the results, and since the survey itself does not speak of a cause, it can't have any implications.

The part you conveniently left out is the experiment consisted of 6949 people in a control group. The controls did not experience the increased mental disorders. The control was hetero sexual. The 'implication' is in black and white without spelling it out. Hide behind your argument all you want, but the experiment was NOT meant to say WHY it happens... only that it DOES happen.

As for my thought experiment, don't dismiss it out of hand by saying that it's not based in "reality". Thought experiments are a vital tool for understanding both social and scientific problems. (Heard of Schroedinger's Cat?) I was merely trying to show you that without an external force acting upon them, homosexuals would have comparable drug abuse and mental disorder percentages to heterosexuals.

Without external forces working on ANYBODY we would live in a vaccum. You are arguing real world problems and using utopian evidence to back you up. I'm sory if some people are easily impressed with your blind folded attempts at a valid argument, but try to base you evidence on something tangible. One could argue ANY point by creating a hypothetical scenario... but I'd rather deal with the evidence at hand.

Next time I'll try persuading an audience that understands correlations and cause/effect relationships.

Ooohh, now there's a cutting blow (pun intended)! Have all the causation and correlation conversations you want. You asked for a real reason why it MIGHT be harmful... I gave you a REAL answer. You come back with a made up argument and spout off about what cause/effect relationship is in place..... weak.

[Tino]

:rant ........ :drooling ......... :sleep

[MaineExport]

Fair enough?

No.

You are quoting articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are not the opinions/positions/viewpoints/recommendations of the AMA. It is not, as you said, "their literature".

So, I'll ask again. Cite it.

K-car... I will say it again... The term 'sexual deviance' is one that is used by the AMA. Yes the article is sourced from JAMA, and that IS their literature.

YOU are the one who erroniously assumed that meant this was or was not their "position". This is a TERM they use... it IS NOT A JUDGEMENT, POSITION, BELIEF, or STANCE!! I don't care if they endorse or revile homosexuality... I simply stated the verbage they used in their periodical.

[MaineExport]

I wish I could express the full breadth of my thoughts through smileys.

Really.

I think your Avatar speaks volumes about your thoughts!

[blodulv]

The part you conveniently left out is the experiment consisted of 6949 people in a control group. The controls did not experience the increased mental disorders. The control was hetero sexual. The 'implication' is in black and white without spelling it out. Hide behind your argument all you want, but the experiment was NOT meant to say WHY it happens... only that it DOES happen.

Did I say that it didn't happen? No. It does happen. What I did do was say that the survey which you quoted doesn't have a reason WHY. Without that reason why you can only say that there is a correlation! You don't even know if increased substance abuse or mental disorders CAUSE someone to be homosexual or the other way around. That's what causation is! Say it with me: Without causation, there is only correlation.

So, based on the survey you quoted, yes, homosexuals do experience increased substance abuse and mental disorders. My apologies if I ever led you to believe that I was arguing against the survey's results.

I will reiterate one more time: That survey proves only that there is a correlation. The cause could be anything. I tried to give a few possible causes, such as persecution and intolerance. So what you have proven is not that "homosexuailty causes harm" but that "homosexuals experience higher levels of substance abuse and mental disorders for an unknown reason."

There is no possible, logical way to argue that point in another fashion based on that survey.

Without external forces working on ANYBODY we would live in a vaccum. You are arguing real world problems and using utopian evidence to back you up. I'm sory if some people are easily impressed with your blind folded attempts at a valid argument, but try to base you evidence on something tangible. One could argue ANY point by creating a hypothetical scenario... but I'd rather deal with the evidence at hand.

Do you concede my point then? That without persecution, intolerance, and bigotry, that homosexuals would experience comparable levels of substance abause and mental disorders? Those are the three external forces which I was speaking of.

If you want some more evidence, look up the DOJ report on crimes against American Indians. They have increased rates of suicide and substance abuse. Are you going to tell me that it's simply because they are "American Indians", or are you going to concede that it's because of external forces acting upon them? (What does having a gross caricature of yourself used as a mascot for a sports team do for your self-esteem?)

[Tino]

I wish I could express the full breadth of my thoughts through smileys.

Really.

you can try to be me, but you'll just make an a.ss outa yourself homey.

[MaineExport]

So, based on the survey you quoted, yes, homosexuals do experience increased substance abuse and mental disorders. My apologies if I ever led you to believe that I was arguing against the survey's results.

I will reiterate one more time: That survey proves only that there is a correlation. The cause could be anything. I tried to give a few possible causes, such as persecution and intolerance. So what you have proven is not that "homosexuailty causes harm" but that "homosexuals experience higher levels of substance abuse and mental disorders for an unknown reason."

There is no possible, logical way to argue that point in another fashion based on that survey.



Do you concede my point then? That without persecution, intolerance, and bigotry, that homosexuals would experience comparable levels of substance abause and mental disorders? Those are the three external forces which I was speaking of.

NO because by your VERY OWN argument, the cause could be ANYTHING!! You are, at best, a hypocrite!!! You say that one CAN"T assume that the cause is the fact that they are homosexual, but one CAN assume it is because of 'persecution', 'intolerance', and 'biggotry'!!! You have at least got to be smart enough to see your own error????

If you want some more evidence, look up the DOJ report on crimes against American Indians. They have increased rates of suicide and substance abuse. Are you going to tell me that it's simply because they are "American Indians", or are you going to concede that it's because of external forces acting upon them?

THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY!!!! wow... come out of it man.. It is the external forces acting on them... you keep muddling the point by trying to discredit me....

You asked if there was any thing that could result in a negative outcome to homosexual relations.... I showed that there is. No one said being gay causes mental disorders. Being gay CAN and does lead to mental disorders. Yes, you have a valid argument that mental disorders could have lead to the homosexuality. But, umm I'm going to go for the OBVIOUS conclusion here. If getting drunk and having personality disorders led to being gay... this would certanly shatter any argument about being BORN gay!!! We wouldn't want to do that now would we!!

[Tino]

damn every time maine gives us a pearl of wisdom I mistake him for some canadian schmuck therefore ignoring his posts. AHAHAHA jk blinky you know we love you.

[MaineExport]

I simply stated the verbage they used in their periodical.

Yes, and you are simply wrong. They did not use the term. They publish a peer-reviewed medical journal, a few issues of which happened to contain articles by researchers who used the term.

If a letter to the editor from me is published in the New York Times, and I say therein that aliens are controlling the government, it would not be accurate to state that "The New York Times says that aliens are controlling the government."

Ok... point well made... I will clarify for the record ONE MORE TIME!

"sexual deviance" is a term used in a publication called JAMA, that is sponsored and published by the AMA. A publication that is edited by the AMA, and of which many articles are written by doctors who are members of the AMA. Satisfied?

[MaineExport]

This has been fun boys... you keep me on my toes.... I don't care if we agree or disagree, I hope there are no hard feelings! I need a beer.... wait a minute though...

:beer + :alcoholic + :beer = :fruit :spank :bshake :boink

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by maineimport "]No one said being gay causes mental disorders.

Well, wait a sec. Someone will.

Being gay CAN and does lead to mental disorders.

There it is. See, I told you someone would say it.

You're arguing post hoc - If A follows B, B must be caused by A. The proof is that mental disorders occur in heterosexual people, so homosexuality cannot be the cause.

You also have a hint of category composition error in there, but I don't want to nitpick.

The operative word being 'LEADS' not causes. Sorry for the confusion. And no, I'm not arguing B must follow A. I am arguing tht B CAN be a possible result of A!!! How many times do you need to hear this. Homosexuality CAN LEAD to increased occurances of mental disorder. It is a POSSIBLE negative outcome. Holy s***, it would be easier to convince the Pope to endulge in a little butt love, than get this point across!!!

BEING GAY DOESN'T CAUSE MENTAL DISORDERS!!!! it is merely a negative outcome that CAN be more likely to occur. I made NO conclusions beyond that... you are the ones that have inferred anything else.

[AZhitman]

Holy s***, it would be easier to convince the Pope to endulge in a little butt love, than get this point across!!!

Wait - You mean he doesn't? Well, then he's in the minority.

"Being Catholic leads to an increased risk of homosexuality.":D

[kilipo4]

Ohhh hunting season is upon us... as of Friday....

Yay!! Deer season! Get to truck out into the backwoods in a black wrangler with my 243 by my side and hunt me some venison. :uziGotta love that backstrap :bowdown Anyone wanna know how to field dress a deer?

Now theres a thread hijack for ya. :pface

-Cliff

[slw240sx]

being catholic also leads to greater chances of being raped by a priest !!!! and being a drunk !!!

tino i bet you didnt understand much of these debates after page 3 just breezed through an stuck in those post whoring one liners didnt you.... i am living for the day when i see two complete sentences when i see one of your posts

[MaineExport]

You said "can and does".

It 'can happen' and sometimes 'does happen' does not imply 'causes to happen'. If you don't understand that I'm truely sorry for you.

You're saying that there is either a post hoc relationship between A and B, or that A and B are joint effects of unknown cause X. The former suggestion is provably false, the latter is unprovable without knowing what X is.

No... you're saying that. I am defending the conclusion of the doctor that authored the article. It SUPPORTS the ASSUMPTION that this behavior shows an INCREASED RISK of said disorders. That does not offer any kind of cause/effect relationship. It is simply an observation based on an experiment. It does not say that being gay CAUSES mental disoder, and it does not say that one can avoid mental disorder by staying straight.

But people like what they like, and it's remarkably inconsiderate of you to not respect that.

No more remarkably inconsiderate than it is of you to tell me I should.

A. Cowboys wear chaps.B. Cowboys get wet in the rain.

I thought chaps were to protect the rider's legs from thorns and cacti?

If you're saying it's a possible outcome, then you're implying causation. I'm sorry you're having trouble expressing yourself. I am not implying causation. Going bald is a possible outcome of having cancer. Does cancer cause baldness.... no. Is it a possible outcome as a result of many of the things that go along with having cancer.... YES! If you go through life without cancer, will you never go bald... NO! It just so happens that having cancer, leads to increased risk of going bald (chemo). This relationship DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSE/EFFECT. Read the conclusion again. And if you still feel the same way, write to the doctor, he has gaciously left his address.

And the only problem I am having with expressing myself, is trying to do so to someone with no intention of listening. You are arguing a position that is not in dispute.