Study on gay marriage views retracted after allegations of fake data

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2015, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought you said all of these were the same reason; you have given numerous. What is that "same reason"?

The "same reason" is that there could be negative repercussions from hitting on ever woman to whom I am attracted.

Is that the same reason you don't have sex with other men?

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 05:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Bfine is trying to get Fred to say he chooses not to commit incest.

Your mind reading skills are failing you at this point. What does Fred's decision not to have sex with a coworker have to do with incest? But the answer to why he doesn't engage of any of these acts is the same; just waiting for him to tell me instead of dancing. Dino was sorta on the right track with decency and morality.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 06:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "same reason" is that there could be negative repercussions from hitting on ever woman to whom I am attracted.

Is that the same reason you don't have sex with other men?

What is the REASON? You did give the reaction of what would. I'm not denying they are the same; as a matter of fact I'm sure they are. You just won't give it.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2015, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the REASON? You did give the reaction of what would.  I'm not denying they are the same; as a matter of fact I'm sure they are. You just won't give it.

I gave it, Brad. You just refuse to read it.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2015, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the answer to why he doesn't engage of any of these acts is the same;

No it isn't.

I don't hit on my friends wives because it might ruin a friendship.

I don't hit on women at work because I might lose my job.

How are those possibly "the same"? the only way they are the same is that there are negative repercussions, and I have already said that.

[BmorePat87]

(05-24-2015, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your mind reading skills are failing you at this point. What does Fred's decision not to have sex with a coworker have to do with incest? But the answer to why he doesn't engage of any of these acts is the same; just waiting for him to tell me instead of dancing. Dino was sorta on the right track with decency and morality.

Then I fail to see the connection you're trying to make toward homosexuality given that it is not indecent or immoral while adultery and incest are.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.

I don't hit on my friends wives because it might ruin a friendship.

I don't hit on women at work because I might lose my job.

How are those possibly "the same"?  the only way they are the same is that there are negative repercussions, and I have already said that.

Ask this guy

(05-24-2015, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, the same reason I don't act on my sexual attraction to married women, women I work with, or my best friends' wives and girlfriends.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 06:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Then I fail to see the connection you're trying to make toward homosexuality given that it is not indecent or immoral while adultery and incest are.

You'll have to ask Dino about that.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2015, 07:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ask this guy

That guy already explained exactly how they are the same.

(05-24-2015, 06:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "same reason" is that there could be negative repercussions from hitting on ever woman to whom I am attracted.

Learn to read.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That guy already explained exactly how they are the same.


Learn to read.

I can read, that's why I was thrown off when the same guy said this

(05-24-2015, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.

I don't hit on my friends wives because it might ruin a friendship.

I don't hit on women at work because I might lose my job.

How are those possibly "the same"?  the only way they are the same is that there are negative repercussions, and I have already said that.

So the best he could do was explain the reaction of each; he could not explain what kept him from doing it.

WTS the matador has grown tired of dancing with the blind shoemaker and history has shown you have difficulty answering questions. Your "expertise" lies in asking them.

The questions asked were to show that most have to ability to suppress urges (voices in your head); unfortunately, all do not. Who knows early in our awareness we may have been attracted to males and females equally (just because you don’t remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen); however, as we learned our minds were able to shut down the same sex urge (voice). Just as you have ‘learned” to shutdown other urges considered inappropriate (negative repercussions). There are those that cannot even suppress these urges and you have stated you can only suppress them long enough until you can be alone. Other suppress them permanently. “young bfine meet your new sister”, from that point forward sexual urge is shutdown.

Scientists who have had a reason to find one have searched for a “gay gene” for decades. They have not found one; every time they think they have something the issue of replication comes into play and they cannot do it. For instance: “This homosexual has a slight abnormality in the 5th phase of the Y chromosome; we’ve found it”. The issue is to be proven it must be found again, to date none have. Other suggest various other scenarios, in which, the answers are in “the genes”; they are looking in the wrong area.

Bottom-line IMO opinion homosexuality is an abnormality in the brain and not in the gene structure. Some may suggest that this has been disproved and the reason that may be true is that there is no motivation to prove it. This very well may change once homosexuality becomes openly accepted and then those that are opposed will have a motivation to prove that we are catering to a brain disorder.

I know the scenario given will not be popular with this audience and I am aware ridicule most likely will follow. There is a chance that it may be wrong. It is just my alternative to others “I know why” or “I don’t know why”.

[BmorePat87]

You could have spared yourself 12 hours of looking foolish and just said "I think gay people are mentally ill".

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 08:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You could have spared yourself 12 hours of looking foolish and just said "I think gay people are mentally ill".

In what way have I looked foolish?

Was it because I kept changing between "it is the same" and "is not the same"?

Was it because I said it was because of decency and morality (your bestie did that)?

Was it because I only wanted it compared to incest (as some failed mind reader suggested)?

Let me guess: It is because you say so?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-24-2015, 07:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bottom-line IMO opinion homosexuality is an abnormality in the brain and not in the gene structure. Some may suggest that this has been disproved and the reason that may be true is that there is no motivation to prove it. This very well may change once homosexuality becomes openly accepted and then those that are opposed will have a motivation to prove that we are catering to a brain disorder.

Not even close brother. Modern psychiatry and medicine no longer considers homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder (or brain disorder as you refer to it). At one time it was considered a mental disorder, and homosexuals were subject to horrendous "treatment" in the name of medicine. You will no longer find it in the DSM-IV (psychiatric diagnostic book)

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2015, 08:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In what way have I looked foolish?

Was it because I kept changing between "it is the same" and "is not the same"?

Was it because I said it was because of decency and morality (your bestie did that)?

Was it because I only wanted it compared to incest (as some failed mind reader suggested)?

Let me guess: It is because you say so?

No.

It is because nothing I said had anything to prove your "theory".

Nothing I said proved that i used to be sexually attracted to men or that homosexuality is a "brain disorder". The fact that I can keep myself from hitting on women at work or my friends wives has zero to do with the stuff you made up.

[BmorePat87]

(05-24-2015, 08:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In what way have I looked foolish?

Was it because I kept changing between "it is the same" and "is not the same"?

Was it because I said it was because of decency and morality (your bestie did that)?

Was it because I only wanted it compared to incest (as some failed mind reader suggested)?

Let me guess: It is because you say so?

Because you spent 12 hours trying to make a point and when everyone asked what your point was, you just responded that they did not know your point.

Everyone tried to guess what your point was given what you said, but apparently we were all wrong. You come off looking foolish considering that everyone was pretty on point given what you said.

[GMDino]

(05-24-2015, 08:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because you spent 12 hours trying to make a point and when everyone asked what your point was, you just responded that they did not know your point.

Everyone tried to guess what your point was given what you said, but apparently we were all wrong. You come off looking foolish considering that everyone was pretty on point given what you said.

And he hasn't answered my questions. And I won't tell you why until he does.

http://bengalsboard.net/showthread.php?tid=295&pid=6030#pid6030

(05-24-2015, 04:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you like boobs or are you a leg man?

Why don't you grab every boob you see?  And when did you start liking them over say eyes?

No matter what you answer you are still attracted to women...you just choose to not attack them.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

So if being gay is a mental illness, should we deny them rights because of it? I know...wrong thread. I'm just curious.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 08:38 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Not even close brother.  Modern psychiatry and medicine no longer considers homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder (or brain disorder as you refer to it).  At one time it was considered a mental disorder, and homosexuals were subject to horrendous "treatment" in the name of medicine.   You will no longer find it in the DSM-IV (psychiatric diagnostic book)

As I said; it is most likely because there has been no motivation to "prove" it; as there has been to find the gay gene over the last few decades. Here's one man's opinion on the matter:

http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

Quote:According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.  Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.  Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis.  There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated.  And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.  (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco.  These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.  In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal.  The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions.  This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.  They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.  And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed.  And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy.  So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 09:27 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: So if being gay is a mental illness, should we deny them rights because of it?  I know...wrong thread.  I'm just curious.

No we should not deny them rights enjoyed by all. But IMO, we should not legitimize it.

Should we allow every personality of someone suffering from multiple personality disorder to vote?

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2015, 08:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because you spent 12 hours trying to make a point and when everyone asked what your point was, you just responded that they did not know your point.

Everyone tried to guess what your point was given what you said, but apparently we were all wrong. You come off looking foolish considering that everyone was pretty on point given what you said.

Nope. Throughout the thread I gave many credit for being on the right track. Except for the failed mind-reader; that dude didn't have a clue.