The APA, in its infinite mentality, had for decades listed homosexuality as pathology, diseased. It still is, except the APA made a 180 degree turn and without a shred of scientific evidence unlisted homosexuality. And it doesn't in any way take the "lack" of scientific evidence otherwise, to use the commonsense of the non-homosexual to know that children shouldn't be exposed to a pathologically imposed environment that extols it. Just how dumb is that.
And factually, homosexual "parents" are unable to have any child who is "theirs."
29 comments
"And it doesn't in any way take the "lack" of scientific evidence otherwise"
Science 101 fail. You have to deliver proof that something is true, not postulate something and then let others disprove it. Unless you have solid evidence of a "cure" for homosexuality it has to be assumed to be natural, not mental. Keep in mind that random genetical mutation doesn't have to be beneficial biologically, but simply occur.
"to use the commonsense of the non-homosexual to know that children shouldn't be exposed to a pathologically imposed environment that extols it."
Nothing is being extolled, it's only being emancipated. If you you think emancipating something or somebody is extolling it, you are either a English learner in you first few years messing up your vocab cards or have a severe case of idiocy.
"And factually, homosexual "parents" are unable to have any child who is "theirs.""
Oh, no! They can, maybe not with each other, but a lesbian can most certainly have a child that is biologically her's. But even if that was true, family is more than genetics.
And as recently as the Victorian Era, bloodletting was the standard treatment for infection.
". . . to use the commonsense of the non-homosexual to know that children shouldn't be exposed to a pathologically imposed environment . . ." But what about all those homosexual children born to non-homosexual parents? Exactlly when were they exposed?
Factually, virgins are unable to have any child who is theirs... So, virgins must suffer from a pathology, then?
Science, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, and as far as some parents having children who are not "theirs," my wife and I, on behalf of adopted parents everywhere offer you a hearty "fuck off and mind your own god damned business!"
" It still is, except the APA made a 180 degree turn and without a shred of scientific evidence unlisted homosexuality."
Except for the mountains of scientific evidence that you don't know about.
You've got the problem all backwards. They listed homosexuality as a mental disorder without any evidence. Having realized that they don't have any evidence they took it off the list. And there's STILL no evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder and, in fact, studies of other species have shown that homosexuality is simply a working of population mechanics.
And factually, homosexual "parents" are unable to have any child who is "theirs."
Yes, and that's the point. By having non-reproductive members of the species they can help raise kids that either don't have a family or whose parents need an extra hand.
"And factually, homosexual "parents" are unable to have any child who is "theirs."
Elton John & David Furnish would like a word with you.
Elijah Joseph Daniel Furnish-John ring any bells, along with their first son, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John?!
What stone have you been living under, RMHolb?
"And factually, homosexual "parents" are unable to have any child who is "theirs." "
I take it you hate infertile couples too?
the APA made a 180 degree turn and without a shred of scientific evidence unlisted homosexuality.
You got it backwards. For decades they listed homosexuality as pathology without a shred of evidence. Then they smartened up - just like we no longer think lightning and the Plague are supernatural, that malaria is caused by "bad air", that the human brain is a cooling organ for the blood or that semen contains teeny little "baby seeds" that grow in the womb like wheat or corn.
That's another part of the whole "issue against homosexuality" I don't quite understand.
On one hand, you insist on having birth control of any form outlawed, and at the same time, you forbid countless of families from adopting the children others can't afford to raise.
How do you justify any line of reasoning that ends with children suffering, and at the same time insist you are doing it for the children?
"...without a shred of scientific evidence unlisted homosexuality."
Just because you fervently wish it so, doesn't make it so.
The APA, in its infinite mentality, had for decades listed homosexuality as pathology, diseased. It still is, except the APA made a 180 degree turn and without a shred of scientific evidence unlisted homosexuality.
Largely because there was no evidence to declare it a disease in the first place. The only reason it WAS declared an illness is because the Bible said it was bad.
And it doesn't in any way take the "lack" of scientific evidence otherwise, to use the commonsense of the non-homosexual to know that children shouldn't be exposed to a pathologically imposed environment that extols it. Just how dumb is that.
Why. No, seriously, you talk as though the fac should be self evident, like having two men under the same roof will drive the poor child to insanity, reducing him to a poo flinging maniac. The fact that there ARE gay couples raising children successfully should prove that this "self evident" fact is less than evident.
And factually, homosexual "parents" are unable to have any child who is "theirs."
Neither can most couples who adopt. Should they be barred from having children, too?
"...the APA made a 180 degree turn and without a shred of scientific evidence unlisted homosexuality."
You got it backward, there was no scientific evidence to maintain the status quo, so it was dropped.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.