410 replies to this topic

[Elva]

I realised that there is some difference in the expectation on the number of people engaging in homosexual acts.

 

Maybe you can post yours, then we would have a clearer picture.

 

My expectations would be as follows:

 

Prior to LGBT community: <1% world population engages in homosexual acts.

LGBT community: 1-2% of world population engages in homosexual acts.

Partial legalisation of gay marriage (current stage): 2-3% of world population engages in homosexual acts.

Legalisation of gay marriage globally: 5-10% of world population engages in homosexual acts.

 

I believe that the correct phrasing would be "x % of the world population dares to admit that they engage in homosexual acts, due to a fear of prosecution, discrimination and otherwise unjust treatment from homophobic individuals".

[MishaZheleza]

Well, since Grandmaster posted no source, I suppose I'll have to look these statistics up.

Well, what do you know? No such statistics exist from my Google searches. So, I'll just post different statistics, until somebody else can get statistics with a source that's valid.

 

• only 0.6% of gay men have ever searched for straight matches.
• only 0.1% of lesbians have ever searched for straight matches.
• only 0.13% of straight people's profile visitors are gay.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

 

• More than one-third (36 percent) of LGBT undergraduate students have experienced harassment within the past year, as have 29 percent of all respondents.

• Those who experienced harassment reported that derogatory remarks were the most common form (89 percent) and that students were most often the source of harassment (79 percent).

• Twenty percent of all respondents feared for their physical safety because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 51 percent concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid intimidation.

• 84% of respondents identified as LGBT.16% of respondents identified as heterosexual or uncertain

• 71 percent felt that transgender people were likely to suffer harassment, and 61 percent felt that gay men and lesbians were likely to be harassed.

• Forty-three percent of the respondents rated the overall campus climate as homophobic.

• Every two years the Massachusetts Department of Education conducts a version (MYRBS) of the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, exploring the health-related attitudes and behaviors of high school students. The 2003 survey found that LGBT students, when compared with their heterosexual peers, were:

  • over 5 times more likely to have attempted suicide in the past year;

  • over 3 times more likely to have skipped school in the past month because they felt unsafe at or en route to school; and

  • over 3 times more likely to have been threatened or injured with a weapon at school in the past year.

Taken from the Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People, 2003 The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Crimes committed in 2002 due to bias against the victim’s perceived sexual orientation represent 16.7% of reported hate crime incidents – the highest level in the 12 years since the agency began collecting these statistics—according to data released Oct. 27 in the FBI report "Crime in the United States in 2002." Sexual orientation bias represents the third highest category of reported hate crimes.

 

http://case.edu/lgbt...statistics.html

 

 

Hey, lookie here, Myths and Facts about Sexual Orientation!

 

Lesbian, gay and bisexual people cannot be identified by certain mannerisms or physical characteristics. People who are lesbian, gay or bisexual come in as many different shapes, colors and sizes as do people who are heterosexual.

Sexual experiences as a child are not necessarily indicative of one's sexual orientation as an adult. Many lesbian, gay and bisexual people have early heterosexual experiences, but are still lesbian, gay or bisexual; many avowed heterosexuals have had sexual contact with members of their own sex, but are still heterosexual.

No one knows what causes sexual orientation. Many lesbian, gay and bisexual people know that they are attracted to members of their own sex at an early age, sometimes as young as 6 or 7 years old. Others learn much later in life, in their 30's, 40's or 50's. Some research indicates that sexual orientation is determined between birth and age 3, but no one is sure what causes particular orientations.

Many people accuse lesbian, gay and bisexual people of "flaunting" their sexuality when they talk about their partner, hold hands or kiss one another in public. These are activities that heterosexual couples do all the time. Due to homophobic reactions, some lesbian, gay and bisexual people are actually forced to hide their sexuality in public, not flaunt it.

People who are lesbian, gay and bisexual work in all types of jobs and they live in all types of situations. They belong to all ethnic and racial groups. They are members of all religious communities. They exhibit a range of mental and physical capabilities. They are young, middle aged, and old.

Sometimes oppression based on sexual orientation escalates into acts of physical violence. In surveys of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, 52-87% have been verbally harassed, 21-27% have been pelted with objects, 13-38% have been chased or followed and 9-24% have been physically assaulted.

Most lesbian, gay and bisexual people are comfortable with their own biological sex; they don't regard themselves as members of the opposite sex. Being lesbian, gay or bisexual is not the same as being transgender.

The majority of child molesters are heterosexual men, not lesbian, gay or bisexual people. Almost all studies show that over 90% of child molestation is committed by heterosexual men.

Homosexuality is not a type of mental illness and cannot be "cured" by psychotherapy. Although homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations no longer consider it to be one. Psychiatric and psychological attempts to "cure" lesbians and gay men have failed to change the sexual orientation of the patient. These "treatments" may help change sexual behavior temporarily but also can create emotional trauma.

 There is no definable gay “lifestyle”.  Similarly, there is no standard heterosexual lifestyle. Some people might like to think that a "normal" adult lifestyle is a heterosexual marriage with two children. Less than 7% of all family units in the U.S. consist of a mother, a father and two children living together. The most accurate generalization might be this: lesbian, gay and bisexual people are different from one another in the same ways that heterosexual people are different from one another.

Compiled by Youth Pride, Inc. with the help of The Campaign to End Homophobia.

 

http://case.edu/lgbt...zone/truth.html

36 -- The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional provisions.

6 -- The number of U.S. states that allow civil unions between same-sex couples, but not marriage: Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island. This number will go down to four this summer after Delaware's new marriage laws take effect in July and the Rhode Island laws do on August 1. (Some states that allow civil unions also ban same-sex marriage.)

12 -- The number of U.S. states that allow same-sex marriage, along with the District of Columbia: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

1,138 -- The number of federal benefits to marriage.

30.25% -- The approximate percentage of the U.S. population affected by Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings after same-sex marriage laws take effect in Delaware (on July 1, 2013) and Minnesota and Rhode Island (on August 1, 2013).

2001 -- The year the Netherlands made same-sex marriage legal. It was the first country in the world to so.

2003 -- The year that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to criminalize sodomy.

2004 -- The year that same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to do so.

14 -- The number of countries worldwide where same-sex marriage is legal in the entire country. They are: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

3 -- The number of countries where same-sex marriage is legal in some areas: Brazil, Mexico and the United States.

27% -- The percentage of Americans who thought same-sex marriage should be legal in 1996, according to a May Gallup Poll.

53% -- The percentage of Americans who think it should be legal in 2013, according to the same poll.

3.5% -- The approximate percentage of Americans identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to 2011 research by the Williams Institute at UCLA.

646,000 -- The number of same-sex-couple households in the United States in 2010, according to the Census Bureau.

80.4% -- The percentage growth of same-sex couple households in the U.S. between 2000 and 2010, according to the Census Bureau.

10% -- The percentage of people identifying as LGBT living in the District of Columbia, according to a 2012 Gallup Poll. This is the highest percentage in the country.

1.7% -- The percentage of people identifying as LGBT living in North Dakota, according to a 2012 Gallup Poll. This is the lowest percentage in the country.

115,064 -- Number of same-sex couple households in the United States with children, according to the Census Bureau.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...me-sex-marriage

 

I must gather all the statistics. O.O

[Elva]

2) While many technology is advanced by significant scientific breakthroughs, there are a number of technology being slowed down or hindered not by scientific breakthroughs but by controversial issues. Cloning, mass production of robots to replace human, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc. Dolly was cloned as early as 1996 but until so far, the technique has only be used on animals, not even clinical trials on humans. The amount of research in that field are also quite limited precisely because of the controversial issues. (https://en.wikipedia...i/Dolly_(sheep)). in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, calling for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was adopted. (http://en.wikipedia....i/Human_cloning). For robots, the ethical issues associated with robots can be found under "Robots in Society" subheading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot). The level of advances in robots has long gone beyond automated manual tasks. However, there are still a lot of disagreements in ethics front for the robot to advance to the stage of replacing humans. The wider adoption of technology aided tools for gay couples will help to advance in this science ethics front. Technology aided tools such as IVF have been quite expensive and with wider adoption, it will drain a lot of resources in that areas and weighing on utilitarian arguments, robots would be cheaper to produce in the long run with economies of scale for mass production. Even if gay couples don't go for reproduction, they will still aggravate the problem of population decline with no reproduction and robots will still come into the picture as a viable solution for shortage of labour.

 

As you so gleefully pointed out, the amount of research in the field of cloning is limited at present by ethical issues. Given that assisted reproduction for homosexual people isn't anywhere near cloning, nor is it robot-making, I think we're safe.

 

Also, population decline isn't exactly a problem at the moment. Baby boomers or not, I've been hearing more talk about overpopulation and straining the world's resources.

 

I swear I must have said this at least four times by now - until you give better evidence, you can NOT simply assume that the use of IVF et. al. by homosexual couples will directly cause scientists to push for the replacement of humans by robots. IVF is assisted conception of a complete human, not a robot. An IVF baby is not a robot, and even if the entire world consisted of people conceived by IVF, it still wouldn't be a society of robots. As I have stated before, the human race is past the point where reproduction is considered the primary purpose of life. 

 

IVF is expensive, but the couple that wants it pays the costs. It's not funded by taxpayers' money; I'm not sure where your problem is.

 

Where does the labour shortage argument come from, anyway? A smaller population would require less labour to run it. No evidence has been presented so far to suggest that we will be in desperate need of a labour force if we allow gay people to get married. 

[MishaZheleza]

No more chart. I'll just post the link....

 

http://www.lifelonga...tion-statistics

Edited by MishaZheleza, 05 August 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[Galadriel]

The level of ignorance in this thread is starting to get offensive. Who I choose to marry, be it male or not, has absolutely no negative impact on the rest of society. If someone is offended by it, that is their problem, not mine. If they choose not think beyond their limited outlook, that is their affliction- not mine. It is this under developed and self-limiting way of thinking that is poisonous to society- not people being with who they love.

[shrouded]

The level of ignorance in this thread is starting to get offensive. Who I choose to marry, be it male or not, has absolutely no negative impact on the rest of society. If someone is offended by it, that is their problem, not mine. If they choose not think beyond their limited outlook, that is their affliction- not mine. It is this under developed and self-limiting way of thinking that is poisonous to society- not people being with who they love.

 

 

but cronus you're going to work with your gay lover to brainwash the world and no one will be able to reproduce!

[MishaZheleza]

but cronus you're going to work with your gay lover to brainwash the world and no one will be able to reproduce!

AND AND AND WE'LL GO EXTINCT, AND AND AND KABOOM! NO MORE BACON. O.O

[Bone]

but cronus you're going to work with your gay lover to brainwash the world and no one will be able to reproduce!

 

I can back this up I talked to cronus too much and caught the gay and then I started having feelings for robots and WE WILL RULE

[Galadriel]

I am the Gay Overlord...

[MishaZheleza]

I am the Gay Overlord...

My brother is gay Jesus. Does that count?

[VaultBoy]

Live and let other people live

[flea]

LETS MARRY EVERYTHING. I BOUGHT TWO MONITORS AND IVE PAIRED THEM IN MARRIAGE.

 

ITS A WONDERFUL THING. YOU CONSERVATIVES SHOULD FUCK WIT IT SOMETiME.

[MishaZheleza]

I'm sorry, 275, what are you on?

[Gunar]

I'm sorry, 275, what are you on?

I think everything?

[MishaZheleza]

Hey, if my boyfriend's mom can get high off banana peals, anything is possible.
*peels

[Grandmaster]

I think we are forgetting here that prohibiting same sex marriage does nothing to prevent same sex relationships. I do not think this is a debate about which aspects of being human should be policed by the state. 

 

Can we stop using essentialist arguments like "turning straight" you can't be "gay" or "straight" ... identities are performed not imagined 

 

With legal binding, it is going to help to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. Take for instance, the monogamy laws in place currently has helped most families to stay monogamy, although it has not entirely prevented extra-marital affairs from happening. If monogamy laws were not in place, polygamy will be very common. Just look at ancient or earlier civilisations, majority of the families are polygamy.

 

If turning straight or gay is entirely impossible, then how would you explain successful cases of gays turning straight or straight people turning gay due to their traumatic childhood? There is still a degree of choice and environment issue associated with homosexual acts.

 

And while we're at it, can we realize that therapy doesn't 'turn someone straight'? Therapy can condition you to think that who you are is wrong, that it's bad to be gay, but it cannot magically turn you straight. When I wake up a bit more this morning, I can get some more sources on that.

 

Actually, most of the evidence and reference have been brought up at https://en.wikipedia...version_therapy. There is no unanimous stand on this issue because of the previously wrong approach towards therapy. As with any other types of therapy, for therapy to work, there must be desire for the person receiving therapy to change and willingness to cooperate. If therapy were to perform under compulsion of the person receiving therapy or unwillingness to cooperate, then the therapy will likely to be unfruitful.

 

I, for one, will welcome the rise of the gay robo-overlords.

 

But seriously. I've read through the entire thread and also read every one of your posts, Grandmaster. Have yet to understand even one of them, mostly because I don't see any real negatives behind what you list as the 'cons' of homosexuality. Do you really think it would be the gay community that pushes humanity into things like cloning and robots? I believe such beings would come into existence if the technology were developed commonly (big 'if' there) regardless of whether homosexuality even existed because humanity is always looking to 'improve' itself through technology and the progress of science. Don't blame the gays for all scientific progress, eh? I also doubt the number of gay people would dramatically rise if gay relationships became openly commonplace because being gay is, in my humble opinion and in that of many others, a matter of nature and not nurture. Even if the amount did rise; so what? Do we begin preparing for the gayocalypse?

 

Maybe I'm a little dim as I have a learning disability so debate tends to be hard for me to read through, but this is an issue I'm close to so I felt the need to comment. Also, I'd ask that you please stop comparing stealing and being gay as though they're similar traits, both undesirable and to be removed. Or at least use other (possibly) both nature-and-nurture traits such as skill with music as well as this negative one to make your comparisons. 

 

If the scientific progress were due to scientific breakthroughs alone, then gay marriage would have negligible effects. But those technology advance are likely to be the result of ethical implications being justified by utilitarian arguments, not just scientific breakthroughs.

 

Since you mentioned about gay people not dramatically rising with gay marriage, maybe you could also post your expectations the same format that I have so that I can better understand the extent of effect of gay marriage you believe have on number of people engaging in homosexual acts. Btw, I have changed the term from "gay" to "people engage in homosexual acts" to make the distinction clearer.

 

No one has proven that engaging in homosexual acts is purely nature. Most sources attributed such acts to a combination of nature and nurture.

 

If there are genuinely issues associated with increasing number of people engaging in homosexual acts due to gay marriage, then it is reasonable for us to be against legalisation of gay marriage.

 

"tendency to steal" and "tendency to be attracted to same sex" comparison was used previously because of their similarity in terms of being a natural tendency and a form of desire that could either be encouraged or controlled depending on the nurture environment. Skills on the other hand can be chosen to be displayed or not. There is no sense of innate desire to display skills.

 

mmmm dat totally made up data

 

And what is wrong with that?  I can assume you are homophobic from your posts 

 

Actually, there's neither data to support or refuse it, I just deduced it based on my expectation and some rough estimation of current number of people who engages in homosexual acts.

 

The reason for posting this expectation is to separate some arguments.

 

1. Some people are arguing from the point of view that number of people who engages in homosexual acts never changes from the start to eventual legalisation of gay marriage.

 

2. Some people are arguing from the point of view that number of people who engages in homosexual acts would be maintain at a negligible number, with or without gay marriage.

 

3. Some people are arguing from the point of view that number of people who engages in homosexual acts would be increased and forms a non-negligible percentage of population with more countries legalising gay marriage.

 

Different expectations form different arguments for and against gay marriage. The difference in the expectations has made some arguments sounds strange to some, that's why it's important to differentiate different expectations.

 

I believe that the correct phrasing would be "x % of the world population dares to admit that they engage in homosexual acts, due to a fear of prosecution, discrimination and otherwise unjust treatment from homophobic individuals".

 

Admitting you are engaging in homosexual acts is different from admitting you are gay or lesbian. Prior to the formation of LGBT community, the percentage of gays or lesbians engaging in homosexual acts is likely to be lower than after the formation of LGBT community because there is less recognition or acceptance in the society for homosexual acts. Likewise, when a legal recognition such as gay marriage was given, that percentage will also likely to increase. It would be unlikely for individuals to risk life for homosexual acts precisely due to fear of prosecution and discrimination. But when you have a community supporting one another for those actions, it is likely for more people to be more bold to perform those acts. Then you have a law to support you, obviously you have no more fear to do whatever you want.

[Elva]

I don't think people are monogamous simply because it's the law. As you said, extramarital affairs happen all the time. Getting married costs a lot of money and is emotionally significant; if someone really wanted relationships with multiple men/women, they'd do it without the marriage certificate, just like homosexual couples are currently forced to. Are you arguing against gay marriage because you think it's wrong to be homosexual, or because you have a problem with the actual marriage part?

 

If there are genuinely issues associated with increasing number of people engaging in homosexual acts due to gay marriage, then it is reasonable for us to be against legalisation of gay marriage.

 

"tendency to steal" and "tendency to be attracted to same sex" comparison was used previously because of their similarity in terms of being a natural tendency and a form of desire that could either be encouraged or controlled depending on the nurture environment. Skills on the other hand can be chosen to be displayed or not. There is no sense of innate desire to display skills.

 

1. No, it's not reasonable, unless you can justify that homosexual acts are something to be condemned. You have not done this.

 

2. Haha. No. People show off all the time. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though; neither stealing nor homosexuality are "skills", unless you're a professional thief for the former.

 

 

Admitting you are engaging in homosexual acts is different from admitting you are gay or lesbian. Prior to the formation of LGBT community, the percentage of gays or lesbians engaging in homosexual acts is likely to be lower than after the formation of LGBT community because there is less recognition or acceptance in the society for homosexual acts. Likewise, when a legal recognition such as gay marriage was given, that percentage will also likely to increase. It would be unlikely for individuals to risk life for homosexual acts precisely due to fear of prosecution and discrimination. But when you have a community supporting one another for those actions, it is likely for more people to be more bold to perform those acts. Then you have a law to support you, obviously you have no more fear to do whatever you want.

 

...so you're against people calling themselves gay/lesbian, because of the terminology? These are labels that people create to stick on other people in attempt to simplify the world, although it usually just makes things more complicated. People do stuff in secret; you can't just make assumptions that things are more or less likely to suit your argument. Homosexuality may be punishable by death wherever you're from, but that is not the case globally. Sure, there are hate crimes, but you'll find people getting beaten up for all sorts of weird reasons; only it's dismissed as 'unprovoked violence' or 'bullying' if the victim isn't known to be homosexual.

 

You are still trying to fortify your arguments with the flawed premise that homosexuality is a bad thing. You cannot say that gay marriage should be illegal because homosexuality is bad because allowing gay marriage would promote homosexuality which is bad because it is.

 

 

No one has proven that engaging in homosexual acts is purely nature. Most sources attributed such acts to a combination of nature and nurture.

 

 

So...all the animals in the wild were influenced by their parents to engage in homosexual acts?

 

I know a significant number of gay people who were raised by heterosexual parents in an entirely heterosexual environment; some even had religious backgrounds, and/or were raised under the mindset that homosexuality was a sin. How is that caused by nurture? I think it's fairly safe to say that most people don't aim to be sinners.

 

 

 

Can't be bothered making fancy quote boxes anymore, so I'll just be lazy.

 

"If turning straight or gay is entirely impossible, then how would you explain successful cases of gays turning straight or straight people turning gay due to their traumatic childhood? There is still a degree of choice and environment issue associated with homosexual acts."

 

How many cases, and how can you be sure they were successful? A lot of gay people just pretend to be straight to avoid being attacked for their true sexuality, and there are many cases of gay people having heterosexual marriages and children because they're in denial of their attraction to the same gender. I'm not saying it is impossible for sexuality to change; I'm just saying that trying to make a gay person straight is about as easy as trying to make a straight person gay, if you take the law out of the equation. There have been many situations where a married person realises after many happy years of marriage that they are attracted to their own gender, and not their spouse's. 

 

You can attribute almost anything to a traumatic childhood. I don't think you'll meet very many gay people who say they magically turned gay because their childhood was horrible.

 

 

"Actually, most of the evidence and reference have been brought up at https://en.wikipedia...version_therapy. There is no unanimous stand on this issue because of the previously wrong approach towards therapy. As with any other types of therapy, for therapy to work, there must be desire for the person receiving therapy to change and willingness to cooperate. If therapy were to perform under compulsion of the person receiving therapy or unwillingness to cooperate, then the therapy will likely to be unfruitful."

 

...so psychotherapy only works if the patient wants to change. This is true, but it is relevant...how? It's bad enough that people think intraspecies sexuality is something to be corrected; you can't expect people to want to be corrected, too. That's like beating someone as a punishment and demanding that they enjoy it. Outside of an erotic context that would be irrelevant to discuss, this idea is ridiculous.

 

 

 

I am mildly amused that your only source of data seems to be Wikipedia. What happens if I edit all the pages to suit my argument?

[MishaZheleza]

I am mildly amused that your only source of data seems to be Wikipedia. What happens if I edit all the pages to suit my argument?

 

Hey, at least I have multiple sources to back me up besides Wikipedia. And, I suppose in this arguement, we have to take in account where everyone is from. Grandmaster is from Singapore. Singapore isn't exactly the friendliest of places for people of the LGBT community. In fact, it's criminal law to practice homosexual sex acts if you're a male, but if you're female, you can practice all the sex acts you want. According to their law, if you're found out to be homosexual, you can be punished by two years in prison. You can get kicked out of school if they find you to be gay, you can be out of a job. However, before I'm accused of saying that all people from Singapore hate gay people, I bring yet another delicious link that proves gay people do indeed exist and Singapore, and they're fighting for equality, knowing very well of the risks.

 

http://thediplomat.c...ingapores-lgbt/

 

And, excuse me, but since I don't speak Malay, Chinese or Tamil, I hope this Wikipedia article explaining LGBT laws in Singapore helps at least bring to light why Grandmaster may have these views.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ts_in_Singapore

 

Oh, and to say that there is no proof about conversion therapy being bad, here are some links that state otherwise.

http://www.huffingto..._n_3466943.html

 

 

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?

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.

 

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

 

"The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/ her homosexual orientation.”

http://www.psychiatr...ual-orientation

Edited by MishaZheleza, 06 August 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[Elva]

Hey, at least I have multiple sources to back me up besides Wikipedia. 

 

Yes, and your arguments have a much more solid base for them. I was half joking, though; surely you're also aware that Wikipedia is considered an unreliable source of information by many schools and universities? It's somewhat a joke among my peers to cite Wikipedia.

[MishaZheleza]

Yes, and your arguments have a much more solid base for them. I was half joking, though; surely you're also aware that Wikipedia is considered an unreliable source of information by many schools and universities? It's somewhat a joke among my peers to cite Wikipedia.

How I see it, Wikipedia is fine to cite information to establish an idea, or perhaps give general information, such as how I used for the Larry King murder, or for LGBT laws in Singapore, and seeing how this is a public forum, and not say a thesis paper or an actual debate, it's alright to use it, but when I did use it, I always tried to give more sources to help support the Wikipedia article. At my school, which is a top 10 school in my state, it's perfectly fine to use Wikipedia as a source, provided that's not your only source.

[VaultBoy]

Jesus, Christ. People are so ignorant smdh

[Mishelle]

This thread is making me want to get gay married.

[Turnip]

This thread is making me want to get gay married.

 

I wanna turn into a homosexual robot lmao

[MishaZheleza]

I wanna turn into a homosexual robot lmao