Inquirer’s Conservative Catholicism Deserves Greater Public Recognition

ooooh…but you do get my point do you? The point is they went over the line with this one and that should not go ignored. Simple as that.

Because you guys are barking up the wrong tree! How is an editorial like this selling religion? What of an editorial about Christmas during Christmas? What about articles about Jesus during Christmas? It's a paper that caters to a country of mostly Christians/Catholics. The editor and staff are most probably Catholics. The article has some historical significance and is not purely a religious issue. For goodness sake it was not about transubstantiation. I think you should take your own advice and take up bonsai or origami or something.

Catholics editors and staff using their religion as a lever to cater the majority. Yep, business as usual.
Btw Skyrim is a great hobby. It's like drugs, with the high but without the risks.

Tsk tsk tsk, there you go again with that toilet mouth of yours. Did your folks treat you that way? What facts are you saying they twisted? That was not an investigative report, it was an editorial, it was the common opinion of the staff and the owners. Editorial (definition): of or relating to a section in a newspaper, often written by the editor, that expresses an opinion (Oxford Dictionary) Get over it and while our at it Ajax cleanser does wonders.

//Tsk tsk tsk, there you go again with that toilet mouth of yours. Did your folks treat you that way?//

They raised me to be honest and direct with my opinions, and not to lollygag behind a pretentious, condescending tone. They've also taught me not to put up with stupid shit.

//That was not an investigative report, it was an editorial, it was the common opinion of the staff and the owners. //

The message of an editorial piece only covers the opinion of its author, and not necessarily the sentiments of an entire office. Unless, you've taken the time to ask each and every one of PDI's editors if they all agree with the article. Have you?

"The message of an editorial piece only covers the opinion of its author, and not necessarily the sentiments of an entire office. Unless, you've taken the time to ask each and every one of PDI's editors if they all agree with the article. Have you?"

Sorry but i have to say this: That is pretty stupid of you to say that. Obviously the editorial staff gave the go-ahead, it got published didn't it? In fact even if the editorial staff got their direction from the owners this is hardly controversial nor polarizing. Did you see or read anything criticizing it except from you guys? No. Try Dutch.

//Obviously the editorial staff gave the go-ahead, it got published didn't it? //

Then you clearly don't read much of PDI's editorials. There have been numerous occassions that editors will say outright on their daily column that they don't agree with so-and-so's opinion, and express is as so.

//Get over it and while our at it Ajax cleanser does wonders. //

I hear that excessive drinking of industrial cleaners does some strange things to a man's brain. Are you speaking from experience?

That's a statement of naivete'

Here try this on for size:
The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber
In our April 1999 NARTH Bulletin, we reprinted "On Arriving at the American Psychiatric Association Decision on Homosexuality," by Irving Bieber, M.D. The full-length article is available by contacting NARTH and requesting our April back issue. We will summarize it here.
The article first appeared in Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, edited by H. Tristam Engelhardt Jr., and Arthur Caplan, Cambridge U. Press, 1987.
Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.
His paper describes psychiatry's attempt to adopt a new "adaptational" perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory–particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation–claiming that if we do not readily see "distress, disability and disadvantage" in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered.
On first consideration, such a theory sounds plausible. However we see its startling consequences when we apply it to a condition such as pedophilia. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile "normal"? As Dr. Bieber argues in this article, psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness–that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively–"may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order."
NARTH President Charles Socarides argued the same point in a review he wrote of gender researcher Robert Stoller's Pain And Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores The World Of S & M. In that book, Dr. Stoller acknowledged the psychodynamic causes of sadomasochism, and then described practices, utensils, and bodily parts used in sadomasochistic performances. He offered a six-page listing of the various methods used to inflict pain and humiliation on willing victims, including the different hanging techniques used to achieve orgastic ecstasy. But then Stoller claimed sadomasochism was no more abnormal than "dislike of zucchini"–asserting that only our "deep prejudices" about perversion lead us to label it abnormal.
Indeed, as some prominent cultural observers have noted, the political drive toward ever-greater equality has turned Americans against any conclusion which entails values and consequences – resulting in our culture's trend toward rejection of all evaluative conclusions as unkind and "undemocratic." Legal scholar Robert Bork sees this as a natural consequence of democracy untethered from its Judeo-Christian roots of self-restraint and responsibility, after which it began to be dominated by the philosophy of radical egalitarianism.
Reading the account by the eminent Irving Bieber, the reader is reminded of the historic role played by both Dr. Bieber, and NARTH President Charles Socarides. Both influential and courageous men stood, we believe, for truth in a profession that has increasingly set itself adrift from its theoretical and philosophical roots.
Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic and statistical manual as "the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals."
"It is my aim here," he wrote, "to separate out the psychiatric and conceptual issues from the sociopolitical issues; to document my own theoretical and clinical position; and to describe the events that I participated in and observed–all of which I trust will bring into focus the elements that went into the American Psychiatric Association's decision."
What is Homosexuality?
He describes the difficulty of putting homosexuality in an appropriate category: Is it a developmental arrest, or an illness? Is it a constitutional disorder, a genetic misprint, a habit? Through his longterm research on the subject, Dr. Bieber concludes that homosexuality is not a normal sexual adaptation.
Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. "They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort." To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, "Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal."
He describes in detail the well-known research study he conducted in 1962, involving a 500-item questionnaire and 106 male homosexuals, with a comparison group of 100 male heterosexuals.
Mother of Homosexuals
He found a close-binding, intimate mother who tended to interfere with her son's assertiveness, and who tended to dislocate his relationship with the father, siblings, and peers. However, Dr. Bieber found that homosexuality can develop without the frequently occurring close-binding-intimate, mother-son bond.

part 2
Fathers
But the most significant finding was that of the detached father. "The father-son relationship was almost the diametrical opposite of that between mother and son. The paternal portrait was one of a father who was either detached or covertly or overtly hostile," he reported. While there was some variance in the mother-son relationship, Dr. Bieber reported,
"The father-son relationship, however, revealed uniformly an absence of loving, warm, constructive paternal attitudes and behavior. In my long experience, I have not found a single case where, in the developing years, a father had a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with the son who becomes homosexual. This has been an unvarying finding. It is my view, and I have so stated and written, that if a father has a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with his son, he will not produce a homosexual son, no matter what the mother is like."
Dr. Bieber's study in fact found a continuity of poor relationships with males, beginning with the father, older brothers, and same-sex peers in childhood. He concludes,

"The consistent history of unremitting fear of and hostility to other males throughout childhood has led me to conclude that male homosexuality is basically an adaptation to a disorder of a man's relationship with other men."
Of the 106 homosexuals who started psychoanalytic therapy, 29 changed to exclusively heterosexuality, which represented 27 percent of the total sample.

Dr. Bieber discussed the issue of the definition of normality. Because homosexual fantasies and behavior are fear-based, he concluded, we cannot call them normal.

The New Diagnostic Criteria

The A.P.A. at that time had adopted a new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must:
regularly cause distress, or
interfere with social effectiveness.
The Psychiatric Association pointed to the excellent occupational performance and good social adjustment of many homosexuals as evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. But such factors do not, Dr. Bieber countered, exclude the presence of psychopathology. Psychopathology is not always accompanied by adjustment problems; therefore, the criteria are in reality, inadequate to identify a psychological disorder.

Dr. Bieber stated that psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; that social effectiveness–that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively–may in fact coexist with psychopathology.

A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.

Will preventive therapy for homosexuality be prohibited, Dr. Bieber wondered, when homosexuality is normalized?

Furthermmore–is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?

Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the "distress and social disability" criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.'s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.

@dboncan

NARTH has a longstanding record of promoting fraudulent research. The organization's "gay conversion" therapy is considered quack science by mainstream medical organizations; NARTH has also been caught red-handed by researchers for distorting their work. In short, the group you're citing has a history for being bloody liars.
http://www.liftmyluggage.org/narth-facts.html http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc…

Anybody with half a brain has no compulsions to take seriously the writings of a group that is so closely associated with fraudulent research and bigotry. You're commenting on a freethinker site, old chap, so try to behave like one 😉

And furthermore, the Irving Bieber paper you're trying to peddle was published in 1962. A lot can change in 40 years, including our understanding of homosexuality. Do you have any resources that aren't as old as you are?

Why dont you write NARTH about it. I read the article briefly and alI could find was not lying on NARTH's part but how they interpret the data. Any study could have several interpretations of the same data depending on how one looks at the study. You would know this if you were in any way familiar with statistics. At ay rate your other links are from gay activist sites, how objective of you!

//Why dont you write NARTH about it.//

dboncan, you're the one that attempted to use them as a source. It's your problem if NARTH is bunk, and not us. Don't expect us to clean up your mess.

//I read the article briefly and alI could find was not lying on NARTH's part but how they interpret the data. //

You're assuming that NARTH has any credibility to lend to the way it can interpret data from the research it uses. The fact is that they don't – they've been caught on several occasions intentionally distorting the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64A2HrvYdYQ

If you had any sense of honest, you'd best drop trying to cite them for your arguments.

//You would know this if you were in any way familiar with statistics. //

Regardless, NARTH has been proven time and time again not to be a trusted source.

//At ay rate your other links are from gay activist sites, how objective of you! //

Close, but no cigar. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a law firm that actively pursues cases of discrimination in the United States. By inclusion, that means they also extensively cover cases of gay discrimination, because it's one of the more prevalent problems in US society today.

And furthermore, you are more than welcome to fin any dirt any of the "gay activist" blogs I have cited. They've got a far cleaner track record than your NARTH sources.

//At ay rate your other links are from gay activist sites, how objective of you! //

The British Medical Journal is a gay activist group? Well that's a new one on me.

No the BMJ is not an activist paper.That position paper however, is speaking against a form of therapy. It does not address the issue of whether homosexuality itself is natural. NARTH is not anti-gay I think I should let them speak for themselves: http://www.narth.com/docs/addresses.html
In my opinion it is a reasonable position paper too. At any rate, it is a fact that some homosexuals struggle with their orientation and would like therapy to correct it or at least adapt to it better rather than be tormented by it. I for one have a friend who was a homosexual to the core. After years of that lifestyle, he sought treatment, both psychological and spiritual. After moving himself away from that lifestyle he was ostracized by his "friends" they blasted him and turned against him. He says because they felt that he was proof that one can change his orientation for as long as one admits that there is a problem. He is married and with a child. My point is, homosexuality is not a a disease the way cancer is or the way bipolar psychosis is. Nevertheless it is an unnatural behavior which some people adapt to poorly and struggle with. Who is to say that these people do not need help. The problem arises when homosexuals, through their activism, curtail this freedom for some of them by trying to reclassify homosexual behavior as natural.

//That position paper however, is speaking against a form of therapy. It does not address the issue of whether homosexuality itself is natural. //

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is not the point – our focus is on whether or not NARTH is a credible organization that should be trusted. Or are you becoming uncomfortable now that I've shot your source full of holes?

//NARTH is not anti-gay I think I should let them speak for themselves: //

NARTH is not anti-gay because…they say they're not anti-gay. Stop deluding yourself. I've presented more than enough evidence in my previous comments to point out that they are willing ti distort research data from other scientists, while promoting " gayconversion" therapy that has already been recognized as harmful.

//In my opinion it is a reasonable position paper too. At any rate, it is a fact that some homosexuals struggle with their orientation and would like therapy to correct it or at least adapt to it better rather than be tormented by it.//

It is your opinion. And the fact is that the reason so many people in the gay community struggle with their identity because close-minded people like you don't bat an eyelash about telling them they are "unnatural," with several of them suffering from discrimination and physical violence in school during their teens. How typical of a bully to blame the victim for being "different" as the cause of their suffering, and how dare you try to hoist the blame on gays.

//I for one have a friend who was a homosexual to the core. After years of that lifestyle, he sought treatment, both psychological and spiritual.//

With bigots like you for friends, small wonder that he'd be tormented by his identity.

//After moving himself away from that lifestyle he was ostracized by his "friends" they blasted him and turned against him. He says because they felt that he was proof that one can change his orientation for as long as one admits that there is a problem. He is married and with a child.//

There are two problems with your citation:

1. Is it even true? We don't have any evidence to prove that your story, moreso that you were so willing to believe the tellings of a group like NARTH.

2. How sure are you that your friend was "cured" of his homosexuality? There are cases where gays will raise normal families as a cover to avoid being ostracized, but still very much have their old sexual orientation.

//The problem arises when homosexuals, through their activism, curtail this freedom for some of them by trying to reclassify homosexual behavior as natural. //

So you'd rather gays just sit down and shut up when they're discriminated against, bullied, and treated as freaks. Yes, homophobia sounds more natural for people, doesn't it?

what is wrong with you? Where does me saying that the gay lifestyle is immoral and homosexual orientation is unnatural become gay bashing and hating?You are adding more the discussion than there is. My position is never one of hate or gay bashing. Show me where I even mentioned that? You're anger is clouding your ability to think properly.

"How sure are you that your friend was "cured" of his homosexuality? There are cases where gays will raise normal families as a cover to avoid being ostracized, but still very much have their old sexual orientation. "

Well first of all, he is my friend so I know but that is kind of a dumb analysis. why would one grow up homosexual with all the trappings then try to change his life, go through marrying a woman, having a baby and hide in the closet to be gay again if in the first place he was already accepted by his gay friends? if any the persecution came after his conversion.

"False equivalence there, dboncan. Explain to us how being gay is in any way comparable to adultery. "

It's not the homosexual orientation but having homosexual relationships like fornication and extra marital relationships is what is immoral so the equivalence is true, they are all morally wrong ACTS.

"Against a man who is so full of his own self-proclaimed, condescending morality that he thinks he can get away with saying homosexuality is just immoral, not because of any specific evidence – even if it's rubbed in his face – but simply because his religion says so. "

I am telling it like it is if you don't like to heart the truth then I can't do anything about it. You are confused with what I am saying: The orientation is disordered but it is not immoral. The gay lifestyle, i.e. having homosexual sex etc… is both disordered and immoral. Just so we are clear on the distinctions, I dichotomize orientation and the acts themselves just as I dichotomize the persons from the acts too. Get with it and stop twisting my words.

//It's not the homosexual orientation but having homosexual relationships like fornication and extra marital relationships is what is immoral so the equivalence is true, they are all morally wrong ACTS.//

So fornication is some kind of a homosexual relationship???
With your statement, can I (not a homosexual)consider myself as an immoral for I have been fornicating?

Shaking the fruit trees…. to dislodge the worms.

What part of what I said didn't you get? Let me repeat this again so you get it: homosexual acts/relationships, like fornication (pre-marital sexual acts) or adultery (extra-marital relationships) are immoral acts. So yes fornication is immoral. Is that clear enough for you?

Ouch still the same sentence. I was hoping you've change it after I re-posted it.:(

So me and my friends who provides and receives the regular blowjobs, hand jobs, anal sex, dry humping, spooning, two ways, three ways, (and use your imagination there's so much more) are immoral?

Why?

Shaking the fruit trees…. to dislodge the worms.

//Let me repeat this again so you get it: homosexual acts/relationships, like fornication (pre-marital sexual acts) or adultery (extra-marital relationships) are immoral acts.//

It's immoral, says who again?

Argumented Ad Nauseum. No matter how many times you will repeat your argument, and no matter how many times you click your heels, Little Dorothy, that doesn't make your assertion any less baseless.

//NARTH is not anti-gay I think I should let them speak for themselves://

Take your assertion up with SPLC and Truth Wins Out. They have a very different opinion of NARTH, and they've been following their activities for years.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2011/10/19259/ http://www.splcenter.org/conversion-therapy

//Conversion therapy – sometimes known as reparative or “sexual reorientation” therapy – is a dangerous practice based on the premise that people can change their sexual orientation, literally “converting” from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Central to conversion therapy is the belief that being gay is a mental disorder – a position rejected by the American Psychiatric Association nearly four decades ago.

People who have undergone conversion therapy have reported increased anxiety, depression, and in some cases, suicidal ideation. The devastating consequences of conversion therapy are why the Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to ending this practice and defending the rights of individuals harmed by it.

Conversion therapy has been discredited or highly criticized by virtually all major American medical, psychiatric, psychological and professional counseling organizations. The American Psychological Association declared in 2006: “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”

The American Medical Association officially “opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

Despite these findings, the conversion therapy movement continues to push its message and is increasingly targeting LGBT youth, often recommending that parents commit their children to treatment against the child’s wishes.//

//Any study could have several interpretations of the same data depending on how one looks at the study.//

You are also being inconsistent here. In one of your other discussions, you cited that the church is the sole authority on the proper interpretation of biblical text. But here, you're basically showing that ANY group's interpretation, regardless of their credibility.

So which is it? What gives you the right to arbitrarily cherry-pick the interpretations of a discredited group like NARTH? Is it because they fit your bias?

//I read the article briefly and alI could find was not lying on NARTH's part but how they interpret the data.//

So you read it briefly, without taking into consideration as to whether or not NARTH has any solid standing as a credible source of information. There's a word for that:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPul…

…which is rather ironic, given how much you loathe the gay community. 😉

I don't loathe the gay community where did you pick that up from? My favorite cousin is gay. I even stayed at their (he and his boyfriend's) place in the US a few times. But whether gays are nice or mean is beside the point. It is apparent that there are experts on both sides of the discussion. You try to make "your" experts as the only credible ones but in reality, the ones who founded NARTH are/were themselves members of the APA. If you read the link I provided for you, you would see the reasonableness of their position far from the caricature that the militant gay communities paint them out to be. My bias is not that gays are bad but that the homosexual orientation is not natural. Yes in the context of Christianity the gay lifestyle is immoral but then so is adultery and fornication for heterosexuals. So my bias is towards a disordered lifestyle be it homosexual or heterosexual. I would write just as vehemently against adultery and fornication and divorce. So your accusations of my loathing are unfounded. Your anger is misdirected.

//Show me where I even mentioned that? You're anger is clouding your ability to think properly. //

1. You've posted a link to a study by NARTH, an organization that has been shown to be anti-gay in nature. And when you are called out on this, you not only defended NARTH, but have also stated that the groups that I have cited to debunk their studies are "gay activist sites." For the record, the SPLC is an anti-discrimination organization.

2. In your on words: "My bias is not that gays are bad but that the homosexual orientation is not natural." Bigotry of any other motivation is still bigotry.

//You try to make "your" experts as the only credible ones but in reality, the ones who founded NARTH are/were themselves members of the APA//

And your point is? NARTH is considered by various medical groups as a quack organization that's attempting to peddle fraudulent therapy to "cure" people of their homosexuality. I've already posted APA's official stance on gay therapy, along that of the British Medical Association. It does not matter if NARTH's psychologists were formerly of APA – what matters is their credibility, of which they have none.

//Yes in the context of Christianity the gay lifestyle is immoral but then so is adultery and fornication for heterosexuals.//

//Yes in the context of Christianity the gay lifestyle is immoral but then so is adultery and fornication for heterosexuals. So my bias is towards a disordered lifestyle be it homosexual or heterosexual.//

False equivalence there, dboncan. Explain to us how being gay is in any way comparable to adultery.

//I would write just as vehemently against adultery and fornication and divorce. So your accusations of my loathing are unfounded. Your anger is misdirected. //

No, I think my anger is aimed exactly where it should be.

Against a man who is so full of his own self-proclaimed, condescending morality that he thinks he can get away with saying homosexuality is just immoral, not because of any specific evidence – even if it's rubbed in his face – but simply because his religion says so.

You claim that being gay is a disordered lifestyle, and yet you fail to see the very real damage that people like you inflict, like teens being forced to commit suicide because they're bullied in school for being gay.

So now people who recognize homosexual lifestyles are bullies? what nonsense! Yes I did say that homosexuality is a disordered orientation. If it is not, then how can you explain the fact that we were all made male and female and it is only through a heterosexual relationship can one ever reproduce? Now this does not mean that we should be mean or we should oppress homosexuals. ON the contrary, we should help them cope. If there are those who want to seek help for their orientation then there is NARTH or COURAGE if not then there is you. LOL.

From what I can understand, you don't loathe the homosexual lifestyle…you pity it and decided that they needed coping and help.
First of all, what's with that condescending attitude? You act that they are, according to the standards of your religion, lower than the heterosexual community and needs saving. Recognizing homosexual lifestyles is fine, but people like you who equates homosexuality with other immoral acts are one of the reasons that drives gay teens to suicide, because your thinking places them in a society lower than the norm.

I think you have a problem understanding English because that is not what I said. What standards of religion are you talking about.? I am bringing up the natural order of things, not religion. IN the natural order of things, we are MALE and FEMALE, is there any other? When a MALE and FEMALE copulate isn't that act fertile? When homosexuals engage in sex, is that act fertile? Don't accuse me of condescension I didn't make nature, I am merely telling it like it is. I equate homosexual acts with heterosexual acts like adultery and fornication. I DO NOT equate homosexual tendencies or orientation to adultery or fornication. I do not loathe homosexual persons, I loathe the act that some of them engage in just as I loathe the act of adultery and fornication. Is that clear enough English for you?

Oh stop it with the deflecting. You are basically saying "I don't hate homosexuality, I just hate what homosexuals do in their private time, if only they'd stop the homosexual acts…" so what's your solution? Condemning them to a life of abstinence? Say "you're not going to have a life partner to express your love with, so go straight anyway?" You're basically placing them in a society that limits their freedom, in which, by the way, is sick.

//When homosexuals engage in sex, is that act fertile?//

Sterile couples aren't fertile either, Einstein. Shall we consider their union "unnatural" as well.

And furthermore, gay couples can always adopt if they want to have kids. And it is not uncommon for lesbian couples to use IVFs to have kids, via an anonymous male donor.

What part of NATURAL didn't you understand?

Are you asking me, or yourself? The animal kingdom has plenty of examples of homosexual behavior, hence your argument that it's not "natural" is null and void.

It is very poor science to attribute human characteristics to observations about the animal kingdom. Animals are driven by instinct and these instincts have an evolutionary purpose of species propagation. If they exhibit "homosexual" behavior, then we must be able to explain it only from an evolutionary standpoint and not from a same-sex attraction as in the case of humans. Some explanations include:
1. Showing dominance within the group
2. Confused breeding patterns because of lack or absence of females to breed with
3. Confused breeding patterns because of the overwhelming scent of females within a group
The problem is when you want to read into animal behavior how humans behave. Is it any wonder why Disney/pixar films about animals with human characteristics are such a hit? The homosexual same-sex attraction does not exist in animals because animals are not thinking beings. Their "attraction" is instinctive therefor has no meaning of affection.
In the animal kingdom, Lions kill off Hyena's who are in their territory, right? Should we condone doing the same and forego diplomacy? Why is it we do not practice infanticide when some animals do practice it and therefor, natural? IT IS BECAUSE WE CAN THINK AND USE OUR INTELLIGENCE OVER OUR PASSIONS AND INSTINCTS. Perhaps you have a lower view of people and thing that we are and should respond to our passions unhampered by the dictates of morals and conscience.

And what makes you think humans are so much better than animals? Heck, the world would be a much better place if we weren't here to screw it around. The point is, nature dictates it, and some people think it's fine to succumb to this instinct, if it ever occurs to them. Who are we to say that's wrong? Just because your religion-based morality says so? No, I think not.

Ah so killing ones own children is okay because animals do it? Driving away or killing the elderly are okay because animals do it? Killing people who infringe on our territory is okay because animals do it? If that is how you think that you are no better than an animal then what should I call you, Simba, Scar or Pumba, how about Timone?

//If that is how you think that you are no better than an animal then what should I call you, Simba, Scar or Pumba, how about Timone? //

Hmm, pass. I'm more of a My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fan than Disney. Rainbow Dash is awesome 😉

Pardon this but I can't help myself: That's so gay!

Thus speakteth another nonbeliever who hasn't even watched the show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS5t75QsQjM

It's alright. We bronies are all about love and tolerance 😉

On the other hand, your use of the term "gay" as a derogatory remark speaks volumes about your mindset.

I suggest toning down your machismo.

No, no, no and no. Importance of life is really easy for humanity to decide. Ask any mentally sane person, with any difference in race, gender, beliefs and they'd tell you the same thing, life is important. But sexuality? No…humanity sucks at that so much that we'd end up killing each other, so we need a ruling from nature…and voila! nature decided. Suck it up.
As for the last question, never really liked Disney…Kyubey is a more fun choice, cute and menacing, me likey.

But you said "nature dictates it" and we are no better than an animal therefor the logical conclusion is if we behave like animals then we are better off. So whatever animals do according to their nature must also be acceptable to us. That's what you said above, do you want me to quote it again? Suddenly you do an about-face and say WE humans can decide the importance of life etc… how are we then worse that animals if we can do that? I think you are one confused fellow. Please gather your thoughts properly before you argue, you contradict yourself so many times. Nuff said.

Says the confused fellow who can't even defend the legitimacy of his sources.
You really don't get it do you? Facts say that homosexuality is naturally occurring. If you don't like it, then…fine don't. Mind your business and let them mind theirs. If you think that homosexual acts makes homosexuals less human then keep it to yourself. If you go around saying what you think about them, don't expect people to cater to you kindly. If you can't make a solid proof that homosexuality is dangerous to the society, then gtfo. Sorry bro, it's hard to fight when the facts are not on your side.

dboncan, let me get this straight:

Your initial argument against homosexuality is that it's not natural.

And when we do point out it is, you then cite that as intelligent animals, we should have the ability to discern over which "natural" behavior is right and wrong.

I agree with your latter premise, but I have another question:

What gives you the authority to tell people which behaviors to cherry-pick?

You are a man who actively defends a church that endorses hiding pedophiles and rapists is anti-women.

As far as most of us here are concerned, you don't get to tell us what is "right" or wrong.

You pointed it out erroneously! It is not natural because animals who act that way are not acting because of same-sex attraction the way a homosexuals do. Notice that the term homosexual is applied to humans. There is no term homosexual in Biological text. It is the erroneous transfer of human attributes to animals. Hence my examples of practicing killing the young, killing the elderly, etc… There is no rational attraction between animals. They are driven by instinct to mate and survive. Everything they do is for evolutionary survival. To try and copulate with a member of the same sex has no evolutionary survival value because it is sterile that is why those actions mean something else as I have outlined. Now why does it boil down to "you don't get to tell us…" we were discussing the nature of things. Any act that goes against ones nature is disordered. That was the point of our discussion. Not right or wrong, at least not yet. As to pedophiles and anti-women and rapists, I see you always default to these ad-hominems when befuddled.

//Notice that the term homosexual is applied to humans. There is no term homosexual in Biological text. //

Let's hear what an biologists, have to say: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/0403… http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_a…

Thanks for pointing me out to the articles. Unfortunately, the one of Le Page is so highly speculative that it proves nothing except what I have already said that the presence of this behaviour in animals may be to increase reproductive chances, in other words, not the attraction that humans experience. In fact he mentions that the so-called homosexual behavior is in fact bisexual. Which proves again my point that this behavior is unlike human behavior where no reproductive advantages may be seen. let me give you a quote from one of the articles you sent me: "Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior." Which means that by and large, most biologists do think this way. I often wonder why some seem to be forcing the issue. At any rate, lets suppose it is present to some degree in the animal kingdom, the core of it is simply that unlike animals driven by passions and instincts, we are humans that can use our intellect and reasoning to temper it. What may hold for animals, if at all, does not necessarily hold for humans. Oh and the biologist that is quoted in the article, Roughgarden is a man who had a sex change operation. For goodness sake did you even read the article? Did you even notice how mainstream biology views homosexuality in animals as deviant: "Other biologists think Roughgarden is exaggerating the importance of homosexuality. Invertebrate zoologist Stephen Shuster told Nature that Roughgarden “throws out a very healthy baby with some slightly soiled bathwater.” And biologist Alison Jolly, in an otherwise positive review of Evolution’s Rainbow for Science, conceded that Roughgarden ultimately fails in her ambition to “revolutionize current biological theories of sexual selection.” As far as these mainstream biologists are concerned, Roughgarden’s gay primates and transgendered fish are simply interesting sexual deviants, statistical outliers in a world that contains plenty of peacocks." Read before you leap my friend.

I'll ask you the same question dboncan: Is there any intelligent reason to discriminate against gays?

Does their existence harm us in any way?

What discrimination are you talking about? I said it is a disordered orientation. I said the homosexual acts are contrary to our nature as male and female. I never said they should not be employed or given drivers licenses or should be treated badly or bullied. How is not allowing them to marry discriminatory when marriage by its very nature is between a man and a woman? How is what I say discrimination? Their existence does not harm anyone, didn't I tell you that I have a cousin who is gay? It is when their militancy demands rights which are not really rights to begin with, then we have got a problem.

No, it is when you deny them the same rights as everybody – to be free of discrimination, and the right to marry somebody they love – when we start having problems.

You have a right to be a bigot of course – as much as you deny it to death that you're not a bigot – but that does not translate you into being able to impose your definition of marriage on other people.

This is how distorted your mind is: You want to change the natural order of things regarding marriage to accommodate what you even agree to be a deviant/disordered behavior, because , why for niceness sake? I don't think it should be done because no one has any right to re-define the natural order of things. It's not my definition, that was defined into our nature. But of course you aren't even sure what on earth that means.

What is marriage exactly all about, dboncan? Marriages in the most "traditional" sense were a form of busines transaction, helping to solidify business deals and political alliances between families. It's only recently that we as a society have recognized marriage as an act of love. http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/marriage/

Marriage itself is a very fluid concept.

//It's not my definition, that was defined into our nature.//

And yet people are born gay, as was defined by them by nature. As you said, who are you to go against nature? 😉

But it has always been between a man and a woman. Tell me: is there a time in the foreseeable future when, because of your "fluid" concept of marriage, people can marry their pets or can marry consenting minors? Given your argument, the answer should be YES, otherwise, you suffer from double standards.

//But it has always been between a man and a woman.//

Not so in the case of Poligamy, and I don't see you harping against Islamic states for allowing it.

WE never ran into that topic so why question my silence on it? I disagreewith it very strongly. I suggest if you want to continue this discussion post a new commentwe are running out of space..ormaybe I will

Take note that I was answering a very different statement, namely this:

//There is no term homosexual in Biological text. //

That Roughgarden's research is disputed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the biology community does recognize the existence of homosexuality among the animal world, regardless if they say it's deviant or not.

Whatever. Notice that even biologists refer to it as deviant. In fact deviant even means abnormal, I was even being nice calling it disordered.

//In fact deviant even means abnormal, I was even being nice calling it disordered. //

Deviant isn't the same thing as harmful, dboncan. Do you have any emprical evidence proving that homosexuality is dangerous to society, for example?

//To try and copulate with a member of the same sex has no evolutionary survival value because it is sterile that is why those actions mean something else as I have outlined. //

dboncan, this is the umpteenth time I've presented evidence indicating that your argument about homosexuality having no evolutionary survival value being a questionable assertion. Are you blind?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolu…

//I am bringing up the natural order of things, not religion. IN the natural order of things, we are MALE and FEMALE, is there any other? //

Show us your credentials as an evolutionary biologist, then maybe we'll stop laughing at you.

I am the one laughing at you. You mean in all your seeming intelligence and seeming astute observations, you can't tell that humans are either Male and Female? Has there ever been a baby produced from homosexual sexual acts? Seriously, you need an evolutionary biologist to show that to you? hahahahahahhaahhaha. Maybe you should ask your friends Tani and Bercero in your next get-together, maybe they can help you out, though i doubt it. Good life to you!

//Has there ever been a baby produced from homosexual sexual acts?//

You're working under the assumption that having offspring is the only meaning people place in marrying or in forming long-term relationships.

And following your logic, we may as well add older people into your definition of what is "not natural," on account of them losing their ability to reproduce after reaching a certain age. We can also include to people who've been born sterile, or those who voluntarily opt for vasectonomies. Have they become "unnatural" according to your definition as well?

Hahaha the point is a heterosexual relationship is by its very nature, fertile. When they lose the capacity to be fertile at an old age, that is also the natural progression of their nature with age. So no contest for you partner! As to people who have been born with a defective system, notice that we use the term defect to mean that it ought to have that function. In homosexual sex, that function is not existent at all.

//Hahaha the point is a heterosexual relationship is by its very nature, fertile. //

As I said again, you're assuming that the couple wants to have kids in the first place.

You're confused. We are not talking about choice but nature, the essence of being. I am so sorry if you haven't gotten it yet.

//We are not talking about choice but nature, the essence of being.//

Your earlier statement:
//What part of NATURAL didn't you understand? //

You then proceeded to elaborate on why homosexuals aren't natural because they can't reproduce.

You've just been caught attempting to shift the goalposts in this discussion. Why should we be taking your serioiusly again?

//I DO NOT equate homosexual tendencies or orientation to adultery or fornication. //

Bullshit. You said this earlier:

//Yes in the context of Christianity the gay lifestyle is immoral but then so is adultery and fornication for heterosexuals. So my bias is towards a disordered lifestyle be it homosexual or heterosexual. I would write just as vehemently against adultery and fornication and divorce.//

Silly rabbit – did you honestly think you could deny to death something you said yourself, when it's just a few posts above your denial?

//Don't accuse me of condescension I didn't make nature, I am merely telling it like it is. //

Once again, tell that to the researchers. Specifically, the anthropologists that have observed that homosexuality does naturally occur, and that it has its uses.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolu…

You certainly didn't make nature, because you know shit about it too. Fucking moron.

//Yes I did say that homosexuality is a disordered orientation. //

It's your word against the established medical specialists, bub. And guess what they have to say 😉 http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation….

"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?"

//All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same-sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to self-determination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.//

So you're advising gays to refer to NARTH, an organization that has been debunked by the greater medical community for peddling snake oil therapies that have been proven to be harmful to patients?

With "kindness" like yours, who need hate?

//ON the contrary, we should help them cope.//

I agree. The It Gets Better Project is an excellent start 🙂

//My bias is not that gays are bad but that the homosexual orientation is not natural.//

So you admit that you are biased.

we all are. you saying you don't?

I'm biased against bigots and fucking morons. You could say I'm more bigoted than you are, cupcake 😉

Another example of the various times that NARTH has been caught lying: http://209.98.77.35/pamshouseblend/diary/15294/na…

And since you'd rather cover your ears regarding anything the APA has to say about gay conversion therapy, let's hear what the British Medical Association has to say regarding it. The short version: They've declared it harmful. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-an…

I can keep going dboncan. As long as you keep citing groups like Narth, there is plenty of evidence to be found that debunks their rubbish.

So why do you bother replying to me since I don't start a conversation with you. LOL

//So why do you bother replying to me since I don't start a conversation with you. //

You lie, I call your out for your bullshit. It's as simple as that.

I owe it to our readers to ensure that they know all the facts before they swallow your hokum.