Gods image.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

There were no 'homosexuals' in the ancient world, as that term hadn't been invented, and the identity which hangs onto it had not evolved

There were people who engaged in same sex relationships, but not with an label like homosexual as we know it as a 'social signifier'. The problems of trying to impose modern western categories with thier attendent labels on a non modern/industrialised culture cannot be overstated.

 

This is not an answer more of a technical disclaimer

 

Apart from being deeply insulting and disgusting in it's implications it's an exaggerated fear, even in proportion of percentages children are far more likley to be abused heterosexually.

 

The reply I was referring to plus your percentage evaluation is totally unsupported, it is a get out statement not facts.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[DavyR]

There were no 'homosexuals' in the ancient world, as that term hadn't been invented, and the identity which hangs onto it had not evolved

There were people who engaged in same sex relationships, but not with an label like homosexual as we know it as a 'social signifier'. The problems of trying to impose modern western categories with thier attendent labels on a non modern/industrialised culture cannot be overstated.

 

Whatever they called homosexuality in the ancient world, it clearly did provoke reactions that would be recognised today. There were distinctions made between chaste relationships ("noble") and ones purely based on lust ("shameful"), so the ancients were making judgments very similar to the modern Church of England (e.g. tolerating "non-practising" gay priests).

 

"If as was evident it was not an attachment to the soul, but a yearning solely towards the body, Lycurgus stamped this thing as foul."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality..._ancient_Greece

[chesters1]

To be god, the boy would have to go back in time to before creation, and then do it all himself, learn how to sit on a cloud, be invisible, inpregnate women from distance and a whole host of improbable things.

To be Napoleon he would need to be time transported back over 200 years. Learn the art of artillery and ensure that he positioned himself in the right place and at the right time to rise to prominence by using those artillery skills to disperse rioting mobs in the Troubled france of the time.

 

To pull off those feats....well it's not going to happen.

 

To change sex... that wont happen either, as I have already said don't like and reject the term 'sex change', however 'gender reassignation is perfectly possible and feasable. He can have surgeries to make him and wider society appear and feel more comfortable in his gender role of choice as 'she', who could even go on to marry, be a wife and live a happy life. The alternative is for her to spent a bleak unhappy existence as 'him' and that's when the real mental illness clicks in. No matter how much and how many times she is told that she is 'wrong', 'ill' or any other negative it won't change a thing.

 

I'm really interested in your statement, ' i do get annoyed some can force their mental delusions into my being . You also said that you don't have any gay friends to pretend to like. So what exactly do LGBT people do to impact upon your life to annoy you so?

i never said they "annoy" me i have no problems with them as i have said more than once ,i do get annoyed that people including gays can use their delusions to place themselves on a higher plateu than others and demand more rights than the masses.

 

as for napolean or god i was talking about mental conditions as you well know .

 

"Howard Hughes was able to afford the luxury of madness, like a man who not only thinks he is Napoleon but hires an army to prove it."

-- Ted Morgan

 

as for homosexuality if your chromosomes say you are X or Y then you are perhaps a hormonal imballance effects the brain into leaning toward the opposite sex and as for curing them i suspect theres just as many "gay" people that would love to be "normal" as there are that revel in their difference ,if it can be cured then not to would then be as homophobic (forcing gayness on those that dont wish to be) than the reverse.if a cure becomes possible then it should be available to those that want it not hidden away because it may offend some people.nor can it be homophobic to suggest it just as it isnt colour predudice to suggest sickle cell anaemia only effects blacks or black combinations of people.

and i'm not afraid to show my ignorence to ask what LGBT is another lable? or merely something to distinguish a few from the many ?

 

on a amusing interlude there was confusion on turning up at a campsite (unfortunate term perhaps) my mrs asked for the disabled toilete key and was informed it was already in use ,a "gender" (as you called it) change chap (chap to female chap change) had turned up ,"she (probably only in his eyes it looked like a bloke in a dress) had asked for a key but the club couldnt give him the womans toilete key because "she" was a he and "she" couldnt be given a male toilete key because "she" looked like a she which could cause confusion if encountered in the male toilete ,in the end the disabled key was issued as being either sex it caused less confusion

strange person acted sorta female but sounded and looked like a chap ,perhaps it brought him happiness but in my eye only brought more external hassel from others than had he just saved his money.

he was completely open to others about his operations and this was his reward a weeks camping (left the next day) in folkestone i just wish he hadnt kept opening and shutting his bloody camper door all night but that ofcourse would apply to males ,females or anything in between so not a homophobic sliding door slander by any means

seemed to have a thing about purple candles as well (is it a sign? purple?) left their stubbs everywhere on the grass ,or perhaps gas or electric lights didnt tally with his new image?

Edited October 26, 2008 by chesters1

[corydoras]

i suspect theres just as many "gay" people that would love to be "normal" as there are that revel in their difference ,if it can be cured then not to would then be as homophobic (forcing gayness on those that dont wish to be) than the reverse.if a cure becomes possible then it should be available to those that want it not hidden away because it may offend some people.

Another two bits worth from me again. I'm not sure if my mate would like to be 'normal' or not, but he has told me that he would not inflict being gay on his worse enemy. Edited October 26, 2008 by corydoras

[chesters1]

i mean theres probably many many people out there ashamed they may be attracted to the same sex who no doupt keep well hidden ,perhaps plenty of "macho" types as well who would prefer not to have these "urges" as well ,if you prefer to be gay fine but help should not be held back for those that prefer to not be.

it wouldnt be forced on anyone ,those that wish can use whatever the method will be can use it those happy with their lot can simply prefer not to.

if theres just as many people hiding away afraid to go out incase they get troubling thoughts encountering the same sex then it would be better offering them medical help so they can lead a happy life as well as those excepting they are gay and getting on with life.

 

i'l leave it up to future generations if the drugs are administered at birth

Edited October 26, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

This is not an answer more of a technical disclaimer

 

 

 

The reply I was referring to plus your percentage evaluation is totally unsupported, it is a get out statement not facts.

 

You are getting increasingly difficult to debate with, not because of the strength of your case, but because of the disjointed nature of it. For example now you point out that I am not supporting my case, and yet you recently said that 'at least I use your own words' (or words to that effect), while I introduce those of others! well that is how it's done. The basic formula is to make a statement, this can be your own words' or hypothasis. Then you support your case with evidence such as research findings, finish with a summary analysis.

 

Let me give you an example in reply to your above.

 

There is no evidence to show that gay people are more likely to abuse children than straight ones, indeed the opposite appears to be the case.

 

The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

 

This leaves the question of why does this fundless fear still persist? Without sound research evidence to the contrary it is difficult to locate the myth as nothing more than another example of 'anti-gay' scaremongering. Happily in the face of hightened awarness and education the numbers of those who see gays and lesbians as a threat to children is decreasing. For example, the number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Herek, G.M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (1), 40-66.

 

There now over to you, your job now is to find some 'evidence' to counter that which I presented. Just saying 'oh I don't think that sounds right', doesnt really prove very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Emma two

[corydoras]

Hi Emma

Glad to see you survived the rain.

[Emma two]

,i do get annoyed that people including gays can use their delusions to place themselves on a higher plateu than others and demand more rights than the masses.

 

I don't know how many more ways, or whether it worth continually pointing out that being gay or transgender is NOT considered an illness. Therefore responding to 'if it were then this, that and the other aught to happen' seems a bit pointless.

 

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as "unnatural," which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day (Boswell, 1980).

 

By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).

Early in the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral, that it was not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society (Robinson, 1976).

 

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....

from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).

 

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

 

Removal from the DSM In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

 

Empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.

[chesters1]

but if its genetic thus a disorder thus a disease and can eventually be "cured" by gene manipulation although finding a baseline "normal" would be exceedingly difficult to find.

it has to be a flaw of some kind had everyone been gay we wouldnt have got past apes in our evolution

and ofcourse it must also be a mental disorder especially in the more outrageous gays ,who in their right mind would advertise the fact they were gay bringing abuse to their doorstep from those that cant abide them

 

altering perception has no relevance, blacks were hated openly once as well but now people have to hate them from within as they seem to have more rights than the masses ,i can hate my white next door neighbour (i dont ofcourse) but if i hate my black next door neighbour it suddenly becomes racial for some strange reason ,it seems i hate him because he's black not for any other reason just as many probably hate (or perhaps dislike is a better word) but now you cant say so so they have more protection under the law than the masses.

 

if i pick a fight with a gay the headlines say i'm queer bashing if he's straight it probably wont get a mention.

 

seems the "gay" card has joined the black and asian card as getting a unfair advantage somewhere along the line ,luckily altered perseption means that immigrants now are seen as a problem it was very un PC to even bring up the matter not long ago ,their cards been withdrawn

not sure what this card brings them ? perhaps the ability to "marry" and adopt or perhaps something else that is unknown to me.

Edited October 26, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

Hi Emma

Glad to see you survived the rain.

 

 

Thanks, we had a quite a storm!. We live on high ground as so were ok The river came over the wall about 20 yards from my Mother's front door, but it ran down a lane and not into her house. By the time I looked at it a few hourse ago, it had dropped by a few feet. That is the highest the river has run in my lifetime. At the moment it's starting to run clear and would be fishable with worms, if it continues to drop it will be a 'spinning beck' tomorrow.

 

the lake got higher than I have ever known too, and there is only 2 open routes out of town