Mother nature's preference?

[dancingqueen]

The very nature of scientific research and testing methodologies are its own watchdogs.

So the watchdogs are also the people being watched. That must be very convenient. Wonder if a conservative organization would be allowed such leeway.

All scientists are not right or left winged, some go right, some go left, some are in between. Some have different religious beliefs, some have different cultural experiences, all come from many different back grounds and all keep the scientific community in check. Science is always trying to disprove it's own theories in order to help understand the things we want to understand. But frankly, it seems you do not know how scientific research is done, and most people don't, I have a very basic idea, but if you are going to argue scientific research methodologies, you should first get a basic understanding of how it is done.

I think we are mixing up "views" do you mean "views" as in opinions? or "views" as in statements made through research and observation?

Opinions.

I wouldn't like their opinions, but I would still look at what they had to say and consider them a legitimate source of information.
I may not like the truth, but that's the thing, Science doesn't care what you feel about it.

You mention selfishness in another thread mocking another poster about "He feels he does not understand it so it must not be true" well you just did the same thing here.

you say it, but don't back it up. I'll write this one off as an emotional reflexive response.

You stated that there is no higher calling to life than to create a life. I disagree with this statement and know as a fact that many people do as well. You just stated that because to you there is no higher calling in life then it must be so for everyone.

Sometimes we can learn from animals, provided we get off our ivory tower to take a look.

How to lick ourselves, perhaps. But we can learn from animals in morals?

To a degree. Morality is an emotional responses to behaviors that we preform, though it is not known for sure if animals are that complex in their thinking, we can see how a particular behavior or set of behaviors affect a community of animals and make judgments based off of that.
For example, the observed homosexual relationship between ducks have caused no ill effects to the population, or survival of ducks.
We see that ducks do not discriminate or ostracize homosexual duck couples, nor are other ducks aggressive towards homosexual ducks outside of the regular amount of aggression shown to other ducks regardless of orientation.
to top that off, there are no recordings of other ducks accusing aggressive ducks of being homophobic just because one of the ducks they attacked happened to be gay (ok that was to lighten the mood)

[dancingqueen]

The APA is a joke. This particular issue of the status of homosexuality was highly politicized, and was decided by a majority vote, not by science. Political Correctness, not science, determined the outcome of this one.

Well for that I would need to demand you show some evidence of.

[Aristotle]

You stated that there is no higher calling to life than to create a life. I disagree with this statement and know as a fact that many people do as well. You just stated that because to you there is no higher calling in life then it must be so for everyone.

It's so not because of the internal feelings of a group of people, it's true because there is nothing more fundamentally important than procreation. Without it, we cease to exist. Sorry, but the good feelings that come with sex are not the end of the story.

[dancingqueen]

I was actually referring to the other side of the argument. Should have said "much of this argument.."

I'm not sure where in this argument anyone is saying homosexuals are born, I quite readily acknowledge (much to the chagrin of most gay activists) that homosexuality is not something we are born with. At the same time, it is not something we have a complete choice in, regardless of your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

[Aristotle]

I'm not sure where in this argument anyone is saying homosexuals are born, I quite readily acknowledge (much to the chagrin of most gay activists) that homosexuality is not something we are born with. At the same time, it is not something we have a complete choice in, regardless of your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

If you are not born with it, yet cannot truly control it, then does it reason to say some men are governed by their pen**? I don't say that to be crass, but I can't see what else you may mean.

[dancingqueen]

You stated that there is no higher calling to life than to create a life. I disagree with this statement and know as a fact that many people do as well. You just stated that because to you there is no higher calling in life then it must be so for everyone.

It's so not because of the internal feelings of a group of people, it's true because there is nothing more fundamentally important than procreation. Without it, we cease to exist. Sorry, but the good feelings that come with sex are not the end of the story.

There is a difference between importance, and calling in life. Yes, procreation is important, that has to happen. But not everyone needs to do it, and not everyone is fulfilled by doing it. Look at how many children are in orphanages. Each one of those parents where not fulfilled by creating a life.

[dancingqueen]

If you are not born with it, yet cannot truly control it, then does it reason to say some men are governed by their pen**? I don't say that to be crass, but I can't see what else you may mean.

I mean that the Nature vs Nurture argument is a false dichotomy. Choices that we make based off of our feelings that are intrinsic to us account for many aspects of our lives, that is essentially nature and nurture coming together to create an aspect of us.

[Aristotle]

There is a difference between importance, and calling in life. Yes, procreation is important, that has to happen. But not everyone needs to do it, and not everyone is fulfilled by doing it. Look at how many children are in orphanages. Each one of those parents where not fulfilled by creating a life.

But it's not the fulfillment of the parents that is important: it's the creation of new life.

again, you're looking at it in the 'what's in it for me' type of way, and that is selfish.

The most important things in life are about what we GIVE, not get.

And the two most important things: love, and life.

The person that goes around looking to see what love and life have to give them will forever be disappointed, because he will never feel satisfied. The person that goes around giving love and life is already fulfilled simply by the act of doing so; the act is 'payment' enough.

[Bluesky]

Well for that I would need to demand you show some evidence of.

You demand. I obey.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/for...ights-movement

who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975,

Motion - indicating it went to a VOTE.

the organization’s problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which rrequired that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence.

Now, don't get me wrong. I would probably be in favour of declassifying it as a mental illness as well.

But I still insist that psychiatry is a "soft" science, and therefore decisions like this are often subjective, and based more on political realities rather than true science.

http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/...homosexuality/

In 1973, after several years of bitter dispute, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, its official list of mental diseases. Infuriated by that action, dissident psychiatrists charged the leadership of their association with an unseemly capitulation to the threats and pressures of Gay Liberation groups, and forced the board to submit its decision to a referendum of the full APA membership. And so America’s psychiatrists were called to vote upon the question of whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental disease. The entire process, from the first confrontations organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of the data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times. - See more at: http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/....7vsqRXCb.dpuf

[dancingqueen]

“It’s a difficult therapy, and it’s not huge in terms of numbers, but yes we have seen success, and this is why the stance that ‘you can never change’—Ronald Reagan said ‘never say never’—it’s absurd. All you have to do is find one exception and it knocks down the ‘never.’ But yes, I’ve experienced more than one exception,” said Cummings.

This is a flawed argument, he seems to be saying that because there has been some successes (He admits to there being few) that it justifies further exploration what he neglects to mention, however, is the significant psychological harm that came about to the people that it did not work on, this becomes an issue of ethics, and it is not ethical to support a form of treatment that harmed more people than it helped. No one denies (except maybe bias fanatics) that conversion therapy has been shown to work on some people. unfortunately things like ethics and cost/benefit ratios have to take precedence over statistical significance, if the amount of successful converters was even scientifically significant.

Besides, as I have mentioned before, the APA is not the only organisation that stands by the idea that conversion therapy is harmful.

[The Berean]

No responses, lots of words, no proofs.

[dancingqueen]

But it's not the fulfillment of the parents that is important: it's the creation of new life.

again, you're looking at it in the 'what's in it for me' type of way, and that is selfish.

The most important things in life are about what we GIVE, not get.

And the two most important things: love, and life.

The person that goes around looking to see what love and life have to give them will forever be disappointed, because he will never feel satisfied. The person that goes around giving love and life is already fulfilled simply by the act of doing so; the act is 'payment' enough.

I'm sorry, I got derailed. there's suddenly a lot of noise in here.
Creation of life is a very important part of our way of life. I agree, and people are doing that... Good!
I disagree that the most important things in life are what we give, it's what we get out of the giving that makes us continue to do so. If we got no positive feelings from giving, we simply wouldn't do it.
I fear we are teetering off topic though.
There are some tribal cultures (I can't recall where atm but I have laundry to do and I'm not gonna look it up right now) that depend on the "gays" of their village to look after the children and raise them because the parents are busy with the hunting and the gathering and whatnot, apparently, these gay villagers are revered for their part they play in the community, apparently, the people of many of these cultures feel they would not be able to survive without them. I'm not saying we should make all the gays into permanent day care providers, but for instance, as a gay man who is childless, I am able to focus more of my energy working with someone else's child that needs more than what can be provided at home. I would suspect God (meaning in the generic "all mighty" not necessarily the Christian God) has a role for homosexuality, otherwise, the parts of us that are intrinsic that contribute to homosexuality would have died out from the gene pool a long time ago.

[dancingqueen]

No responses, lots of words, no proofs.

Your one to talk, If you don't wish to contribute, kindly.....
actually, just kindly stay out of this thread, you have nothing intelligent to contribute.... ever.

Just in case you didn't notice, this is a discussion, not all discussions need proof, there are few instances, but as you can see this conversation has been going quite respectfully without the need for constant proof.

[Barry Morris]

Your one to talk, If you don't wish to contribute, kindly.....
actually, just kindly stay out of this thread, you have nothing intelligent to contribute.... ever.

Just in case you didn't notice, this is a discussion, not all discussions need proof, there are few instances, but as you can see this conversation has been going quite respectfully without the need for constant proof.
but this concept is most likely above you, so....
here's some nice colorful crayons, why don't you go play with these in the corner

I'm laughing at your non-response to Bluesky, and shall continue to do so.

You said:

"I disagree that the most important things in life are what we give, it's what we get out of the giving that makes us continue to do so.."

Self serving, AND giving to ones children is something you don't have any joy in. Too bad,

By the way, easy on the insults, please.

[The Left Sock]

I'm laughing at your non-response to Bluesky, and shall continue to do so.

You said:

"I disagree that the most important things in life are what we give, it's what we get out of the giving that makes us continue to do so.."

Self serving, AND giving to ones children is something you don't have any joy in. Too bad,

By the way, easy on the insults, please.

Wow, you start off this post with an insult, continue with another insult, and then caution people about insults.

You have lost it. Again.

[Aristotle]

I would suspect God (meaning in the generic "all mighty" not necessarily the Christian God) has a role for homosexuality, otherwise, the parts of us that are intrinsic that contribute to homosexuality would have died out from the gene pool a long time ago.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. I see what you're saying, but not sure it's the logical conclusion you feel it is.

You (as I, and Blue, and Barry, and Anapeg, etc,etc, etc) exist in spite of our sexual proclivities. We exist because God deems us worthy of existing*

What we do with our existence is where free will comes in to the picture.





* don't read into that statement that we are under the watchful eye of a wrathful God who arbitrarily brings us into or out of existence,depending on if He is having a good day or bad day. Instead, think about it this way: The Alpha and Omega, He to Whom all nature obeys and every knee in Heaven, Hell, and Earth bend, considers us special enough to share in His existence;so much so He'd love nothing more than to spend Eternity with us.

THAT is mind-boggling.

[Barry Morris]

Wow, you start off this post with an insult, continue with another insult, and then caution people about insults.

You have lost it. Again.

Laughing is an insult.

Got it.

[The Left Sock]

You threw multiple insults into one post, and then cautioned people about insults.

And you don't even realize you did it?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Barry Morris]

You threw multiple insults into one post, and then cautioned people about insults.

And you don't even realize you did it?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Laughing when somebody ignores a proof he asked for is an insult. Calling what one does for oneself self serving is an insult.

And now an insult about lunacy.

Let's just let it go, shall we??

[dancingqueen]

And I'm done here, Mr. Ban-happy banned the only member here contributing, Feel good yet Barry?