Study on gay marriage views retracted after allegations of fake data

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..but they are not motivated to ensure the existence. They must leave that to the non-dysfunctional ones.

Well they're not dysfunctional, so I am not sure why you said that, but the fact that they want to have children using their own genetic material suggests that they are motivated.

Likewise, any straight person who wishes to never have children is not dysfunctional.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 10:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your link goes on to state

Not sure I disagree with the rest of the link.

What have I said to the contrary?

The inability to ensure the existence of your species is an "impairment"; don't you agree?

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure I disagree with the rest of the link.

What have I said to the contrary?

The inability to ensure the existence of your species is an "impairment"; don't you agree?

They're not unable to, they just do not want to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. You're really reaching here.

Are straight couples who choose to never have children mentally ill?

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 10:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well they're not dysfunctional, so I am not sure why you said that, but the fact that they want to have children using their own genetic material suggests that they are motivated.

Likewise, any straight person who wishes to never have children is not dysfunctional.

Yes, but a straight person that doesn't want to have children still have the function (arousal) to do so.

The homosexual that cannot be aroused by the opposite sex does not.

Bottom line: If everyone on earth were homosexual and unable to be aroused by the opposite sex, then we would would be dysfunctional as a species. Same if everyone were sterile.

But there would still be those that claim" "Hey we might be going extinct, but we are not dysfunctional".

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, but a straight person that doesn't want to have children still have the function (arousal) to do so.

The homosexual that cannot be aroused by the opposite sex does not.

Bottom line: If everyone on earth were homosexual and unable to be aroused by the opposite sex, then we would would be dysfunctional as a species. Same if everyone were sterile.

But there would still be those that claim" "Hey we might be going extinct, but we are not dysfunctional".

I assumed that after explaining the psychology definition of "dysfunction" for you that you would understand. Instead you have made multiple posts after the fact in which you have used the incorrect definition of dysfunction.

Gay people can function in every day life. You should also not be concerned about them not having children as many gay couples do have kids.

Any subsequent posts in which you use "dysfunction" out of context will be ignored. If you can't act like an adult, I just won't respond.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 10:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I assumed that after explaining the psychology definition of "dysfunction" for you that you would understand. Instead you have made multiple posts after the fact in which you have used the incorrect definition of dysfunction.

Gay people can function in every day life. You should also not be concerned about them not having children as many gay couples do have kids.

Any subsequent posts in which you use "dysfunction" out of context will be ignored. If you can't act like an adult, I just won't respond.

I saw the definition of dysfunction; it's just that I am silly and consider reproduction part of everyday life and homosexuals might be "hindered" in this function.

Not sure where I have "not acted like an adult".

We just disagree; doesn't mean one is more grown up than the other; regardless how many times you look in the mirror and state otherwise.

BTW, I could care less if you respond or not.

[GMDino]

Two things:

(05-25-2015, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I saw the definition of dysfunction; it's just that I am silly and consider reproduction part of everyday life and homosexuals might be "hindered" in this function.

You are silly. It is not. We are not lower life forms desperately trying to reproduce to continue our species.

(05-25-2015, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW, I could care less if you respond or not.

Oh boy...


image search

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh boy...


image search

Good thing I didn't say "raining cats and dogs". Then you would have to take some of your valuable time to let me know that it cannot actually rain cats and dogs.

Hopefully you take the time to respond but "I could only be so lucky"

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Two things:


You are silly.  It is not.  We are not lower life forms desperately trying to reproduce to continue our species.

You know what? You, your bestie, and Matt have convinced me.

Hell, reproduction is not even a necessary function of our species. Anyone that is "impaired, hindered, (whatever is the correct word)" in this process shows no signs of dysfunction.

Even with my new-found enlightenment; I will say I'm glad mom and pop found it important to continue the species and had the ability to do so.

[GMDino]

(05-25-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You know what? You, your bestie, and Matt have convinced me.

Hell, reproduction is not even a necessary function of our species. Anyone that is "impaired, hindered, (whatever is the correct word)" in this process shows no signs of dysfunction.

Even with my new-found enlightenment; I will say I'm glad mom and pop found it important to continue the species and had the ability to do so.

Have you ever heard of a "sliding scale"?

It is NOT the most important all driving factor in our every waking moment....and it is not, well, whatever you were whining about in that quote above.

Reproduction is PART of our lives. Some people try and fail. Some people do not try at all. Even straight people.

But it shows, again, that all you really care about is how two people HAVE sex...not which sex they are attracted to.

If a man claimed to be the king of the gays and married a woman and had 6 kids that she raised whatever religion you choose...that would be good to you because he was acting "normal". But if they didn't have kids you'd accuse him of sodomy and condemn him from the high altar for...not reproducing?

As is typical for America...its prudishness mixed with (or caused by) religion) and not any factual reason that you oppose something.

And as is typical I will call another one out for it only to be told it has nothing to do with sex...just reproduction.

[GMDino]

(05-25-2015, 11:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good thing I didn't say "raining cats and dogs". Then you would have to take some of your valuable time to let me know that it cannot actually rain cats and dogs.

Hopefully you take the time to respond but "I could only be so lucky"

Oh lighten up Larry.

There was a whole debate in here about that phrase and I poked a little fun at you.

[BmorePat87]

(05-26-2015, 08:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Have you ever heard of a "sliding scale"?

It is NOT the most important all driving factor in our every waking moment....and it is not, well, whatever you were whining about in that quote above.

Reproduction is PART of our lives.  Some people try and fail.  Some people do not try at all.  Even straight people.

But it shows, again, that all you really care about is how two people HAVE sex...not which sex they are attracted to.

If a man claimed to be the king of the gays and married a woman and had 6 kids that she raised whatever religion you choose...that would be good to you because he was acting "normal".  But if they didn't have kids you'd accuse him of sodomy and condemn him from the high altar for...not reproducing?

As is typical for America...its prudishness mixed with (or caused by) religion) and not any factual reason that you oppose something.

And as is typical I will call another one out for it only to be told it has nothing to do with sex...just reproduction.  

Wait, are you telling me that you can function day to day (work, social interactions, maintaining personal well being) without constantly worrying about procreating and continuing the human race?


lol, you should let him be. He was corrected but chooses to continue with his incorrect understanding of psychological terms. You can't really have a conversation with someone who chooses to behave that way.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2015, 08:40 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wait, are you telling me that you can function day to day (work, social interactions, maintaining personal well being) without constantly worrying about procreating and continuing the human race?


lol, you should let him be. He was corrected but chooses to continue with his incorrect understanding of psychological terms. You can't really have a conversation with someone who chooses to behave that way.

If I stopped talking and interacting with every person who doesn't understand but tries to play off that they do I'd have to stop coming to work.

[Ben Richards]

But what about virgin births?

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2015, 08:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Have you ever heard of a "sliding scale"?

It is NOT the most important all driving factor in our every waking moment....and it is not, well, whatever you were whining about in that quote above.

Reproduction is PART of our lives.  Some people try and fail.  Some people do not try at all.  Even straight people.

But it shows, again, that all you really care about is how two people HAVE sex...not which sex they are attracted to.

If a man claimed to be the king of the gays and married a woman and had 6 kids that she raised whatever religion you choose...that would be good to you because he was acting "normal".  But if they didn't have kids you'd accuse him of sodomy and condemn him from the high altar for...not reproducing?

As is typical for America...its prudishness mixed with (or caused by) religion) and not any factual reason that you oppose something.

And as is typical I will call another one out for it only to be told it has nothing to do with sex...just reproduction.  

No where did I say reproduction is "most important all driving factor in our every waking moment....". That's just something you made up in your head to try and explain your's and your bestie's feeble point.

Nobody is discussing the morality of the issue at this time, so I have no idea why you attempted to introduce it (unless see above for motivation)

Let's try a yes or no question: Is reproduction a necessary function for the existence of our species?

Now, let's just assume you provided an honest answer and stated yes.

Now if something in your brain caused you not to be able to perfrom that function would you consider that a Dysfunction?

To answer your question about the straight person. I would consider it a physical dysfunction if they could not reproduce. Hell, they might even have medical terms for the conditions.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2015, 08:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh lighten up Larry.

There was a whole debate in here about that phrase and I poked a little fun at you.

I must have skipped over that. Most likely saw the title and figured it was a complete waste of time. Hope you guys enjoyed the debate.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No where did I say reproduction is "most important all driving factor in our every waking moment....". That's just something you made up in your head to try and explain your's and your bestie's feeble point.

What you said was:

(05-25-2015, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I saw the definition of dysfunction; it's just that I am silly and consider reproduction part of everyday life and homosexuals might be "hindered" in this function.

It is not. As I explained.

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody is discussing the morality of the issue at this time, so I have no idea why you attempted to introduce it (unless see above for motivation)

I RE-introduced it because it is your only argument. The sex is the "wrong" kind of sex. Other than that you have no other point to make.

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try a yes or no question: Is reproduction a necessary function for the existence of our species?

Yes. But not a " part of everyday life" that forces us to constantly reproduce to maintain the species. But you know that.

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now, let's just assume you provided an honest answer and stated yes.

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now if something in your brain caused you not to be able to perfrom that function would you consider that a Dysfunction?

Yes.

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To answer your question about the straight person. I would consider it a physical dysfunction if they could not reproduce. Hell, they might even have medical terms for the conditions.

Yes...like ED, or any other myriads of health related reasons.

That all occur naturally.

And are not choices.

And, when people have them, they are still allowed to be legally married without questioning their ability / desire to reproduce.

[BmorePat87]

(05-26-2015, 09:22 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: But what about virgin births?

That's some serious dysfunction there.

sweet avatar, dude.

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-26-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try a yes or no question: Is reproduction a necessary function for the existence of our species?

Yes.

Your turn.

Does allowing Gay marriage threaten the existence of our species?

If so how? You know given they were gay prior to the marriage and thus wouldn't be having kids through bumpy bump fashion anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2015, 03:19 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Yes.

Your turn.

Does allowing Gay marriage threaten the existence of our species?

If so how?  You know given they were gay prior to the marriage and thus wouldn't be having kids through bumpy bump fashion anyway.

No it doesn't threaten the existence of our species; neither do many other Brain Disorders suffered by countless people. Luckily there are more than enough functional folks to keep the species moving.

Do you think that everyone that is gay wants to be gay? if you answer yes then stop here. If you answer no, then do you think it would be worthwhile to look for treatment if it were found to be a process in the brain, instead of a "gene" we are born with?

It is almost too ironic; I'm actually advocating that homosexuality may not be a choice and it's meeting with great resistance by the ones that assert it is not.