The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Philosophy

Philosophy Philosophy discussion about everything from politics to daily living to ethics and morals


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 12th, 2011, 07:17 PM   #21
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
None of my family has ever been gay. We do not have the mutant gene that causes faggotry. Straight people have been known to have faggot children, but that is because the genetics in their children have mutated, thus differing from that of their parents.

If any of my family were to become gay, YES, they should be prevented from continuing in the gene pool. Eugenics is a wonderful thing. The human race needs to be kept pure.
I am done with you. Eugenics is ridiculous- it'd be ironic if they chose whatever traits you have to be the non-pure one and they killed you. But thank god the eugenicists are no longer taken seriously. Also, there is no known mutation for homosexuality- you are just making things up (and if you aren't tell me which gene the mutation occurs in).
myp is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 06:21 AM   #22
Congressional Leader
 
DodgeFB's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Undisclosed
Posts: 2,821

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
None of my family has ever been gay. We do not have the mutant gene that causes faggotry. Straight people have been known to have faggot children, but that is because the genetics in their children have mutated, thus differing from that of their parents.

If any of my family were to become gay, YES, they should be prevented from continuing in the gene pool. Eugenics is a wonderful thing. The human race needs to be kept pure.
Sounds like inbreeding to me?
DodgeFB is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 07:26 AM   #23
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by DodgeFB View Post
Sounds like inbreeding to me?
I don't think he realizes that if any of his family were gay and it was found that being gay was linked to a gene, that his genetic code could possibly carry that allele and he too (along with the rest of his family) under his plan might have to be kept from further breeding.
myp is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 08:28 AM   #24
Congressional Leader
 
DodgeFB's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Undisclosed
Posts: 2,821

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
I don't think he realizes that if any of his family were gay and it was found that being gay was linked to a gene, that his genetic code could possibly carry that allele and he too (along with the rest of his family) under his plan might have to be kept from further breeding.
Just from living on the farm for over 37 years I know you need to bring in some new blood to the animals. We used to trade bulls with neighbors just so all our calves would not have the sire.
DodgeFB is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 11:47 AM   #25
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,877

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
It is a genetic disorder. The solution would be to remove them from the gene pool by disallowing them from participating in procreation.
How are homosexuals going to breed?
David is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 04:34 PM   #26
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
I am done with you. Eugenics is ridiculous- it'd be ironic if they chose whatever traits you have to be the non-pure one and they killed you. But thank god the eugenicists are no longer taken seriously. Also, there is no known mutation for homosexuality- you are just making things up (and if you aren't tell me which gene the mutation occurs in).
The DNA has not even been mapped yet, but you want me to draw you a picture of which gene is mutated in the faggots/dykes of this world? You cannot be serious.

Why is eugenics ridiculous? Are your American people aware that you Americans were practising eugenics long before the Nazis were, and that after it was stopped in your country, the USA looked with excitement as the Nazis carried on? ****ing hypocrites. Eugenics would help to perfect humanity. No more fags/dykes. No more ******s, jews etc. No more wars. Simply... PERFECTION.
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 04:35 PM   #27
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
How are homosexuals going to breed?
Idiot, they would jerk off their jism, and have it injected into a cunt. Duh?
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 05:09 PM   #28
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
The DNA has not even been mapped yet, but you want me to draw you a picture of which gene is mutated in the faggots/dykes of this world? You cannot be serious.
First of all you can't make the claim that it is genetic if you can't name the gene or explain how it is genetic. Using that logic you can make an argument for anything. There are things that are known to be genetic but the genes not identified because there are appearances in family lines that are consistent with how a trait might be passed along in a gene. HOMOSEXUALITY HAS SHOWN NO SUCH PROPERTIES. And if you think it has then please do share (or just admit that you are bullshitting yourself and everyone. again.)

Second, the human genome was mapped YEARS ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
Why is eugenics ridiculous? Are your American people aware that you Americans were practising eugenics long before the Nazis were, and that after it was stopped in your country, the USA looked with excitement as the Nazis carried on? ****ing hypocrites. Eugenics would help to perfect humanity. No more fags/dykes. No more ******s, jews etc. No more wars. Simply... PERFECTION.
It doesn't matter who was practicing it. Just because people did wrong things in the past does not justify doing wrong things in the future. It is wrong to discriminate based on genetics. It is my value standard and most of the world's at this point.
myp is offline  
Old December 14th, 2011, 09:18 AM   #29
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

It is a disorder. Wikipedia states:

DSM-I (1952)World War II saw the large-scale involvement of US psychiatrists in the selection, processing, assessment and treatment of soldiers. This moved the focus away from mental institutions and traditional clinical perspectives. A committee that was headed by psychiatrist Brigadier General William C. Menninger developed a new classification scheme called Medical 203 that was issued in 1943 as a War Department Technical Bulletin under the auspices of the Office of the Surgeon General.[8] The foreword to the DSM-I states the US Navy had itself made some minor revisions but "the Army established a much more sweeping revision, abandoning the basic outline of the Standard and attempting to express present day concepts of mental disturbance. This nomenclature eventually was adopted by all Armed Forces", and "assorted modifications of the Armed Forces nomenclature [were] introduced into many clinics and hospitals by psychiatrists returning from military duty." The Veterans Administration also adopted a slightly modified version of Medical 203.

In 1949, the World Health Organization published the sixth revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) which included a section on mental disorders for the first time. The foreword to DSM-1 states this "categorized mental disorders in rubrics similar to those of the Armed Forces nomenclature." An APA Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was empowered to develop a version specifically for use in the United States, to standardize the diverse and confused usage of different documents. In 1950 the APA committee undertook a review and consultation. It circulated an adaptation of Medical 203, the VA system and the Standard's Nomenclature, to approximately 10% of APA members. 46% replied, of which 93% approved, and after some further revisions (resulting in it being called DSM-I), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was approved in 1951 and published in 1952. The structure and conceptual framework were the same as in Medical 203 and many passages of text identical.[8] The manual was 130 pages long and listed 106 mental disorders.[9]

DSM-II (1968)Although the APA was closely involved in the next significant revision of the mental disorder section of the ICD (version 8 in 1968), it decided to go ahead with a revision of the DSM. It was published in 1968, listed 182 disorders, and was 134 pages long. It was quite similar to the DSM-I. The term “reaction” was dropped, but the term “neurosis” was retained. Both the DSM-I and the DSM-II reflected the predominant psychodynamic psychiatry,[10] although they also included biological perspectives and concepts from Kraepelin's system of classification. Symptoms were not specified in detail for specific disorders. Many were seen as reflections of broad underlying conflicts or maladaptive reactions to life problems, rooted in a distinction between neurosis and psychosis (roughly, anxiety/depression broadly in touch with reality, or hallucinations/delusions appearing disconnected from reality). Sociological and biological knowledge was incorporated, in a model that did not emphasize a clear boundary between normality and abnormality.[11]

Seventh printing of the DSM-II, 1974Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, described the events of 1971-3 in his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1981).

Bayer explains that the first protest by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Gay rights activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance".[12]


The noteworthy thing here is that the reversal of the APA's catagorizationn of homoseuxality as a disrder is a result of this: "Bayer explains that the first protest by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Gay rights activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder." Once again, in true liberal fashion, people who spoke the truth were shouted down by activists. Well, activists do not decide what is and is not a disorder, and the APA just buckled from the political pressure
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old December 15th, 2011, 05:31 PM   #30
Analyst
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 76

Except for priests, apparently

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
The Catechism Of The Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM


Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Of course, this doesn't apply if you are a priest. Or so recent evidence seems to suggest, anyway. Usually paedophile homosexuals, to boot. I guess they keep getting new shots at self-mastery and chastity while the church hushes up yet another scandal.
skeptic-f is offline  
Old December 16th, 2011, 09:54 AM   #31
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic-f View Post
Of course, this doesn't apply if you are a priest. Or so recent evidence seems to suggest, anyway. Usually paedophile homosexuals, to boot. I guess they keep getting new shots at self-mastery and chastity while the church hushes up yet another scandal.
I feel sorry for brainless lemmings like you who just repeat what they are told like good little lapdogs
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old December 16th, 2011, 09:55 AM   #32
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
I feel sorry for brainless lemmings like you who just repeat what they are told like good little lapdogs
Hate to break it to ya, but you do this too (especially when it comes to Islam).
myp is offline  
Old December 16th, 2011, 10:00 AM   #33
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Hate to break it to ya, but you do this too (especially when it comes to Islam).
No, I do not. What he said was demonstrably false. When I have more time I might go into the details as to why.

What I post, on the other hand, is demonstrably true. There is nothing wrong with repeating something if its true.

EDIT: But there is something that is interesting: His post did not get you bent like my Muslim jokes did. This tells me what I have long suspected, that you are pro-Islamo-Fascist and anti-Christian
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old December 16th, 2011, 10:07 AM   #34
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
No, I do not. What he said was demonstrably false. When I have more time I might go into the details as to why.

What I post, on the other hand, is demonstrably true. There is nothing wrong with repeating something if its true.

EDIT: But there is something that is interesting: His post did not get you bent like my Muslim jokes did. This tells me what I have long suspected, that you are pro-Islamo-Fascist and anti-Christian
You found this funny: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpos...43&postcount=1

Here you say that such things must have some truth in them to be funny: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpos...3&postcount=10

WHAT PART OF THOSE "JOKES" DO YOU FIND TO HAVE SOME TRUTH IN THEM?

As for me being pro-Muslim (and I have no idea how fascist got in there THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGION) and anti-Christian- ha. I guess when you have no decent points to make it comes down to attacking the other person. You realize that in my last post in this thread I said that you do this too suggesting that I agree with you that skeptic is being unfair, right?

I have many Christian friends, many Muslim friends, and many Jewish friends. I am not any of these religions. I have no problem with any religion- I have a problem with the ignorance-fueled hatred that people like you bring into it.
myp is offline  
Old December 17th, 2011, 07:32 AM   #35
Analyst
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 76

My thoughts exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
I feel sorry for brainless lemmings like you who just repeat what they are told like good little lapdogs
My reaction on reading the post of Catholic Crusader was that I had just had the same reaction Catholic Crusader had, except the evidence supports my position and not Catholic Crusader's.

The fact is there have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history, with the exact percentage being unknown but varying between 1% and 15% of the population (probably somewhere in the middle, using a statistical analysis). There have also been sex scandals throughout the history of the Catholic church, but particularily after priests were forbidden to marry. Man was not meant to be a celibate creature and such things (rapes, assignations, mistresses, child abuse) were bound to happen.

Instead of reading the (very) theoretical Church doctrine, I invite Catholic Crusader to read about the very real history of sexual misbehavior by clergy in the Catholic Church over the centuries AND in contemporary times. I've got my head up and looking around - it seems to be CC who is charging ahead blindly heading for that cliff.
skeptic-f is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 04:03 AM   #36
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
You found this funny: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpos...43&postcount=1

Here you say that such things must have some truth in them to be funny: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpos...3&postcount=10

WHAT PART OF THOSE "JOKES" DO YOU FIND TO HAVE SOME TRUTH IN THEM?

As for me being pro-Muslim (and I have no idea how fascist got in there THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGION) and anti-Christian- ha. I guess when you have no decent points to make it comes down to attacking the other person. You realize that in my last post in this thread I said that you do this too suggesting that I agree with you that skeptic is being unfair, right?

I have many Christian friends, many Muslim friends, and many Jewish friends. I am not any of these religions. I have no problem with any religion- I have a problem with the ignorance-fueled hatred that people like you bring into it.
Yoiu are a feekin' moron
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 04:05 AM   #37
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic-f View Post
My reaction on reading the post of Catholic Crusader was that I had just had the same reaction Catholic Crusader had, except the evidence supports my position and not Catholic Crusader's.

The fact is there have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history, with the exact percentage being unknown but varying between 1% and 15% of the population (probably somewhere in the middle, using a statistical analysis). There have also been sex scandals throughout the history of the Catholic church, but particularily after priests were forbidden to marry. Man was not meant to be a celibate creature and such things (rapes, assignations, mistresses, child abuse) were bound to happen.

Instead of reading the (very) theoretical Church doctrine, I invite Catholic Crusader to read about the very real history of sexual misbehavior by clergy in the Catholic Church over the centuries AND in contemporary times. I've got my head up and looking around - it seems to be CC who is charging ahead blindly heading for that cliff.
Does your eveidence include that God considers homosexuals acts as abominations?

Or are you the new God
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 08:19 AM   #38
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Yoiu are a feekin' moron
Your hypocrisy was proven, your strawman revealed, and it comes to insults. Fantastic.
myp is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 08:40 AM   #39
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,877

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Does your eveidence include that God considers homosexuals acts as abominations?

Or are you the new God
Sorry but a 2,000+ year old Roman document isn't the word of Yahweh.
David is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 04:08 PM   #40
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Does your eveidence include that God considers homosexuals acts as abominations?

Or are you the new God
Depends what God you are talking about

Everyone doesn't agree :
BORKED
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Philosophy

Tags
addressing , gay , issue



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Universal Whaling Issue rice_farmer Government and Politics 102 June 24th, 2012 10:12 PM
healthcare issue cjaneposc Government and Politics 35 February 5th, 2010 03:14 PM
Tiger Woods issue chu Current Events 42 January 7th, 2010 02:41 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.