Homophobia

[Pawpatrol]

Burdensome? Now you reminding me of folk who call me a burden for being disabled. And folk calling disabled folk burdens cuz some cant work. The idea that certain folk are burdens irks me a lot. People are not burdens married or not. They are people.

That's not universally true. At all. Some people really are mostly a burden.

Still there is a difference between certain people being "a burden" and "burdensome", but with your strong emotional reaction — that is not at all my problem — you missed it.

I would caution you to not consider certian groups burdens. That historically has not ended well in society.

Do you propose we start lying and calling drug addicts and professional muggers "productive people that enrich the society in truly creative ways"? Or what is it you propose?

 

[VoidCat]

That's not universally true. At all. Some people really are mostly a burden.

Still there is a difference between certain people being "a burden" and "burdensome", but with your strong emotional reaction — that is not at all my problem — you missed it.

Do you propose we start lying and calling drug addicts and professional muggers "productive people that enrich the society in truly creative ways"? Or what is it you propose?

I propose we recognize people as they are- human beings with inherent worth by virtue of existing and having human rights as a result. Historically considering folk burdens has not ended well. You have a lot to learn from history. Historically the idea folks are burdens has lead to violating people's autonomy and rights. That mugger and those drug addicts likely have family. And while you may argue they don't help society they do not deserve to be seen as burdens to it. That's how you justify doing inhumane things to such people like cutting off the hand of the mugger for thieving or taking a drug addict and denying them medical treatment in a situation where they are dying because "they don't need to live."

The idea that certain groups of people are burdensome is what causes things like eugenics. Saying that single men are burdens or burdensome if you want to make the phrase sound nicer tho it makes no difference is not a good idea. See their humanity. else you could justify some pretty bad stuff. Like force marriages. It also could lead to blaming crimes on the men being single rather then the root problems. Like saying that men are more suicidal because they are single rather then acknowldging hey it's actually because we don't allow them proper mental health services, don't allow them to express their emotions openly, encourag men to be violent and only express anger as an emotion instead of learning to properly manage anger etc

 

[Secret Chief]

Some people really are mostly a burden.

I've read some disgraceful **** on RF over the years but this has to be the lowest of the low. Let us all hope that you don't get considered a burden.

 

[Eddi]

Some people really are mostly a burden.

Yes, we should exterminate the weak (sarcasm)

 

[VoidCat]

@Pawpatrol
We've heard this rhteroic throughout US and european history the idea of groups being burdens or burdensome because of "that group is full of criminals."

Do you know where that lead to in the US at least? Native Americans and black people being labelled as feebleminded and criminal and sterilized as a result. Because that group is was thought to be full of criminals by certain racists. That's what happens when you view a group as a burden. Historically in the US and Europe criminals have been considered burdens and unethical tests as a result were ran on them.

History of eugenics you'd do well to learn. I have a book on it I can show it to you. Not even just focusing on say the Nazis but the history of those ideas that predate that. The Nazis were inspired by the US eugenics movement and there was a eugenics problem in Europe long before the Nazis.

And even before the eugenics movement in the US ideas of people being burdens or burdensome caused very awful problems. Again i have a book on it. Do you want me to show you it?

 

[Argentbear]

That's not universally true. At all. Some people really are mostly a burden.

Still there is a difference between certain people being "a burden" and "burdensome", but with your strong emotional reaction — that is not at all my problem — you missed it.

if you view people who are different as a burdens then it is obviously its you that has the problem

 

[Pawpatrol]

If you look at the studies being cited you find they are saying something a little different than what Focus on the Family is reporting
Example: The Causal Effects of Father Absence by Sara McLanahan Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider. fids the positive effects of fathers is not limited to biological father and includes father figures. It also finds that it is the amount and quality of interactions with a father figure that produces the positive effects and has nothing to do with being married to the child's mother or even residing in the same household.

The purpose of my reference was not related to the value of marriage but to that a gay couple are not proper "parents" to anyone.

and then one needs to look at research of children raised by same sex parents and that research shows on just about every measure that kids raised by gay/lesbian parents fair no differently than kids raised by heterosexuals and in some cases have slightly better outcomes.

Lies.

"In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting, which included this assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (American Psychological Association 2005).

However, a 2012 research study of the APA Brief and its bibliography by L. Marks stated that this strong assertion made by the APA was not empirically warranted. Twenty-six of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups. And in comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the heterosexual comparison group. In none of the 59 published studies were the definitive claims substantiated. The author recommended further research.

Major flaws exist in the vast majority of studies published before 2012 on this subject (Marks 2012) including the fact that they relied upon small, nonrepresentative samples that are not representative of children in typical homosexual families in the United States.

Two major studies, published by Gartrell and Bos (2010) and Biblarz and Stacey (2010), are often cited by gay activists and extensively in the media. These studies claim that no psychological damage occurs to children who were deliberately deprived of the benefits of gender complementarity in a home with a father and a mother. The article by Gartrell and Bos relies solely on self-reports of the lesbian mothers who were aware of the political agenda behind the study.

Similarly, in the research done by Biblarz and Stacey, in 31 of the 33 studies of two-parent families, it was the parents who provided the data, which consisted of subjective judgments. As with the Gartrell and Bos study, this created a social desirability bias, because the lesbian parents knew full well why the study was being done."

It's a long article. You can read the rest on the page here.

 

[Argentbear]

The purpose of my reference was not related to the value of marriage but to that a gay couple are not proper "parents" to anyone.

Your choice to hate LGBT people is a reflection of you and not of anyone's ability to parent

Lies.

"In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting, which included this assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (American Psychological Association 2005)

However, a 2012 research study of the APA Brief and its bibliography by L. Marks stated that this strong assertion made by the APA was not empirically warranted. Twenty-six of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups. And in comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the heterosexual comparison group. In none of the 59 published studies were the definitive claims substantiated. The author recommended further research.

and in response to this criticism numerous studies were undertaken including:


Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes Henny Bos 2016
School Outcomes of Children Raised by Same-Sex Parents: Evidence from Administrative Panel Data Deni Mazrekaj 2018
A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents
Alicia Crowl and Soyeon Ahn 2018
Behavioral Outcomes of Children with Same-Sex Parents Deni Mazrekaj, et all 2022
Parental positive affect and negative affect in same- and different-sex parent families: no associations with parental gender and caregiving role
Tamara L M Leteret al 2024
and literally dozens of others all showing that kids raised by LGBT parents are happy healthy and do well in school

Major flaws exist in the vast majority of studies published before 2012 on this subject (Marks 2012) including the fact that they relied upon small, nonrepresentative samples that are not representative of children in typical homosexual families in the United States.

Two major studies, published by Gartrell and Bos (2010) and Biblarz and Stacey (2010), are often cited by gay activists and extensively in the media. These studies claim that no psychological damage occurs to children who were deliberately deprived of the benefits of gender complementarity in a home with a father and a mother. The article by Gartrell and Bos relies solely on self-reports of the lesbian mothers who were aware of the political agenda behind the study.

Similarly, in the research done by Biblarz and Stacey, in 31 of the 33 studies of two-parent families, it was the parents who provided the data, which consisted of subjective judgments. As with the Gartrell and Bos study, this created a social desirability bias, because the lesbian parents knew full well why the study was being done."

It's a long article. You can read the rest on the page here.

Written by Richard P Fitzgibbons a member of the board of directors of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality NARTH a well known hate group that advocates abusive "therapy" for children

“Hold therapy” is almost exclusively done with children. The child is physically restrained while the therapist screams at them and encourages the child’s parents to express their hatred and disgust for the child. There have been some reports of parents being encouraged to hit, slap or kick the child. This will continue until the child admits that they are hurting their family and that they hate themselves for being gay." Ref: Bright, C. "Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: An Examination of the Processes Involved When Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation. 2004

Of interest in Fitzgibbons piece here is the inclusion of he assessment of research done by Theodora Sirota who has sued Fitzgibbons for lying about her research

Its really sad that your source is a leading member of a hate group

 

[The Hammer]

Your choice to hate LGBT people is a reflection of you and not of anyone's ability to parent

and in response to this criticism numerous studies were undertaken including:


Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes Henny Bos 2016
School Outcomes of Children Raised by Same-Sex Parents: Evidence from Administrative Panel Data Deni Mazrekaj 2018
A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents
Alicia Crowl and Soyeon Ahn 2018
Behavioral Outcomes of Children with Same-Sex Parents Deni Mazrekaj, et all 2022
Parental positive affect and negative affect in same- and different-sex parent families: no associations with parental gender and caregiving role
Tamara L M Leteret al 2024
and literally dozens of others all showing that kids raised by LGBT parents are happy healthy and do well in school

Written by Richard P Fitzgibbons a member of the board of directors of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality NARTH a well known hate group that advocates abusive "therapy" for children

“Hold therapy” is almost exclusively done with children. The child is physically restrained while the therapist screams at them and encourages the child’s parents to express their hatred and disgust for the child. There have been some reports of parents being encouraged to hit, slap or kick the child. This will continue until the child admits that they are hurting their family and that they hate themselves for being gay." Ref: Bright, C. "Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: An Examination of the Processes Involved When Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation. 2004

Of interest in Fitzgibbons piece here is the inclusion of he assessment of research done by Theodora Sirota who has sued Fitzgibbons for lying about her research

Its really sad that your source is a leading member of a hate group

What in the ever loving abusive ****

 

[Argentbear]

What in the ever loving abusive ****

The methods of conversion or reparative therapy are incredibly disturbing and harmful. If you can find the book Deconstructing Reparative Therapy it is worthwhile to read....if you have a strong stomach. The techniques described are a lesson in brainwashing and manipulation.

 

[Pawpatrol]

You just tried to compare LGBT people with drug addicts. that isn't logical is just evil.

I'm sure you're aware that homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973 in the United States, but are you aware that it was not done due to sudden enlightenment, but rather through vote? A bit over half voted yes... It barely made it off the list and even that was due to all the brainwashing and media wars. It is a kind of an illness, and so is drug addiction.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sure you're aware that homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973 in the United States, but are you aware that it was not done due to sudden enlightenment, but rather through vote? A bit over half voted yes...

So, in other words, it was changed because people realised it was wrong and the majority opposed treating it that way.

Y'know. A good thing.

It barely made it off the list and even that was due to all the brainwashing and media wars.

Because, as we all know, there was absolutely no anti-gay brainwashing and anti-gay media, especially not before the 1970s; and people were only opposed to homosexuality for perfectly valid, rational reasons.

It is a kind of an illness,

No, it isn't. Factually.

 

[Eddi]

It is a kind of an illness, and so is drug addiction.

That is stupid

It is like a man who finds blond women more attractive than brunettes calling men who prefer brunettes ill

 

[Eddi]

It is a kind of an illness

Also, how many terrorist acts have been committed in the name of homosexuality?????

 

[Argentbear]

I'm sure you're aware that homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973 in the United States, but are you aware that it was not done due to sudden enlightenment, but rather through vote? A bit over half voted yes... It barely made it off the list and even that was due to all the brainwashing and media wars. It is a kind of an illness, and so is drug addiction.

You are very wrong about this (not surprised)

The vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM was a unanimous vote and based on the complete lack of evidence that homosexuality was a mental illness.

In early 1973 several petitions for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM were presented to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) nomenclature committee based on the simple fact that the current DSM classification was not based on any evidence and that homosexuality does not even meet the base definition of a mental disorder.

The APA's Nomenclature Committee went through an 11-month process by preparing a report recommending the change in DSM-II. This process was open to any APA member and in the course of the 11 months 78 different experts were called on to present evidence and research. The committee specifically invited most vocal opponents of the change, Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present research and evidence. While all three attended meetings they presented no research. Instead they chose to complain how the this was a political move not a scientific one. At the end of this process the APA's Council on Research and Development unanimously recommended to the APA board for the deletion of homosexuality from DSM.

Then the APA Board of Trustees again invited , Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present their case a third time on December 10, 1973. Bieber restated the old theories without presenting data to support them. Socarides and McDevitt complained that the change in classification was motivated by politics, not by scientific studies. Socarides and McDevitt were asked once again to present scientific studies supporting their view of homosexuality as a pathology. They could not produce any. The Board voted to approve the removal of homosexuality from DSM

Socarides and Bieber found a provision in the APA by laws designed to provide some democratic control over the association's corporate life, and then forced a petition demanding a referendum of the Association's membership to vote out the APA's board . Amazingly, those who accused the APA of capitulating to political pressure were now themselves forcing a political maneuver and using a loophole in a provision for non-scientific matters to accomplish their end.

Most of the APA membership thought the referendum was some sort of bad joke and refused to even vote in the proceedings. the vote you are talking about was this vote

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sure you're aware that homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973 in the United States,

So were a lot of other silly things like "hysteria."
And there are a lot that didn't used to be there that are there now, like ADHD.

Things can change when we learn more information and analyze things more carefully.

but are you aware that it was not done due to sudden enlightenment, but rather through vote?

The APA decides what goes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that they publish, yes. Who else would and why do you think that's weird?
Wait, do you think it's based on their personal opinions rather than a thorough analysis of the available facts?

A bit over half voted yes... It barely made it off the list and even that was due to all the brainwashing and media wars.

LOL No, that's not how it's done. Do you think doctors glean their data on mental health issues via "media wars" and "brainwashing?" That's absurdly wrong.

It is a kind of an illness

No it isn't.

, and so is drug addiction.

You finally got something right.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Then why did all my studies for a psych degree and experience in the field not ever mention this?
If anything kids raised by lesbians tend to fair the best.

Ask your university.

That's what "Focus on the Family" claims anyway.

Here is their mission statement:

"To be led by the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and affirming the God-ordained institution of the family and proclaiming biblical truths worldwide."

They have a very obvious agenda.

And how about the National Library of Medicine — are they in it too? Because they have the same views.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Why is it that every argument you've presented against it is about your icky feelings about it then?
I've not seen any logical argument from you on this one.

Why you can't keep up with the discussion is not my problem.

We get it. We just vehemently disagree and have no problem saying so.

Another example of your not being able to keep up.

That doesn't address my comment. You asked, "Why would I think God specifically wanted disbelievers having kids?" and I gave you a couple plausible reasons. Can we agree that you'd rather deflect than address them?

My question "why would you..." Is an indication that I disagree to begin with.

I refer you to the Garden story and the flood story, each of which led to punishing most or all of the human race.

Only disbelievers died in the flood. No one died in Eden.

You say that I don't understand you and make no effort to correct the understanding I described to you.

Because I don't care. I advised you so you might behave better in the future with other people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why you can't keep up with the discussion is not my problem.

You had written, "My dislike of homosexuality is not so much emotional as it is logical." That's a simple, hateful, and erroneous comment. No logic was involved, just Abrahamic bigotry.

You flatter yourself thinking that rejecting your ideas is not understanding them. Your thoughts are simple.

I advised you so you might behave better in the future with other people.

You're still flattering yourself. Who do you think you are to be giving me unsolicited, condescending advice?

My question "why would you..." Is an indication that I disagree to begin with

So what? I wrote, "That doesn't address my comment. You asked, "Why would I think God specifically wanted disbelievers having kids?" and I gave you a couple plausible reasons. Can we agree that you'd rather deflect than address them"

That you disagree doesn't matter to me. Why you disagree might, but we're not going to see that, are we?

Only disbelievers died in the flood. No one died in Eden.

It's all fairy tales, but even within their framework, Adam, Eve, all of humanity were punished for the kids' "outrageous" choice to eat a forbidden apple, and most terrestrial life was cruelly and needlessly murdered in the flood.

 

[Argentbear]

Ask your university.

And how about the National Library of Medicine — are they in it too? Because they have the same views.

its a clearing house of links it doesn't hold any opinion