Switching Teams

[Goatboy]

what's the name of the logical fallacy where the evidence is denied by attacking the source?

You have the links. You have the sources. You have the ability, I assume, to read what is posted on any of the dozens of sites with this info.

Sorry if it rocks your little world.

edit: please note the introduction of hate and phobias. Usually a good way to distract from admitting when one is wrong.

Ad hominem.

But how could I attack the source, when you lack the honesty to reveal who the source is?

You said this was an ‘expert’ opinion on orientation, I said it I thought it more likely to be the work of

a homophobic religious bigot; with the express intention of dishonestly using real expertise to lend credence to the hate they love to wallow in.

If I’m wrong you can clearly demonstrate it by telling us who put that list together and their expert qualifications. “If” I’m wrong.

("Rock my world" - heh, be a cold day in hell before a conservative christian propaganda site manages to do that for me).


Anyway far too late for this. I’m off to the pub.

I’ll see if you’ve come clean on Monday.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

edit: please note the introduction of hate and phobias. Usually a good way to distract from admitting when one is wrong.

Then stop introducing them.

 

[NeTrips]

Ad hominem.

But how could I attack the source, when you lack the honesty to reveal who the source is?

You said this was an ‘expert’ opinion on orientation, I said it I thought it more likely to be the work of
[/color][/i]
If I’m wrong you can clearly demonstrate it by telling us who put that list together and their expert qualifications. “If” I’m wrong.

("Rock my world" - heh, be a cold day in hell before a conservative christian propaganda site manages to do that for me).


Anyway far too late for this. I’m off to the pub.

I’ll see if you’ve come clean on Monday.

What a bunch of lazy buggerers one could assume there are here. Can't even bother to read a link, just claim it's fake in order to not admit when they are wrong.

The list was compiled by the APA, you know the professionals know what they are talking about.

the author of the article linked to is Robert H. Knight, a former editor and writer for the Los Angeles Timesand former Hoover Institution Media Fellow. He is the author of The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and the Corruption of Popular Culture (Spence Publishing, 1998, 2000).

 

[Steezie]

My post cited the sources of the information. If you doubt the validity of the sources or the accuracy of the information then the burden is upon you to investigate and present your findings. To make repeated claims that something is untrue simply because it goes against your opinion is not a valid argument.

You must provide a link to the site where you coppied and pasted the information. Otherwise theres no way to verify you didnt just make it up. I want to see your source. What you coppied and pasted cited sources, you did not.

The best I've been able to find that matches what you gave is this http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/SexualOrientationsDSMRev.pdf
Which totally ignores the fact that homosexuality and bisexuality were REMOVED FROM THE DSM IN 1973.

This current version of the DSM DOES NOT LIST homosexuality, bisexuality, or even anything on the list that you provided as a sexual orientation.
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm
(Scroll down to Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders)

What a bunch of lazy buggerers one could assume there are here. Can't even bother to read a link, just claim it's fake in order to not admit when they are wrong.

You have used information that is false. You have born false witness. You did not do your research. Rather than attack everyboddy who calls you on your breaking of the commandments, you should research things BEFORE you post them

 

[NeTrips]

You must provide a link to the site where you coppied and pasted the information. Otherwise theres no way to verify you didnt just make it up. I want to see your source. What you coppied and pasted cited sources, you did not.

The best I've been able to find that matches what you gave is this http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/SexualOrientationsDSMRev.pdf
Which totally ignores the fact that homosexuality and bisexuality were REMOVED FROM THE DSM IN 1973.

This current version of the DSM DOES NOT LIST homosexuality, bisexuality, or even anything on the list that you provided as a sexual orientation.
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm
(Scroll down to Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders)

You have used information that is false. You have born false witness. You did not do your research. Rather than attack everyboddy who calls you on your breaking of the commandments, you should research things BEFORE you post them

Steezie,

go read post #51. You have the links. Dozen more links are available via google. You made the claim that I fabricated data. I have shown the source of the data and listed the author for those too lazy to click on the link and read. You made an accusation that has been proven false. If your next post in this thread is not a retraction, then you have clearly displayed your lack of integrity, backbone, spine, whatever you wish to call it.

We'll wait.

 

[TheManeki]

I wonder if the fixation on changing homosexuals to heterosexuals comes from heterosexuals afraid they will catch "teh gay."

 

[NeTrips]

I wonder if the fixation on changing homosexuals to heterosexuals comes from heterosexuals afraid they will catch "teh gay."

no. it comes from a sincere desire to see them repent

Luk 15:7

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

 

[Steezie]

Steezie,

go read post #51. You have the links. Dozen more links are available via google. You made the claim that I fabricated data. I have shown the source of the data and listed the author for those too lazy to click on the link and read.

I read the links, they cite the DSM. I showed you the DSM. And it says NOTHING about homosexuality.

You made an accusation that has been proven false. If your next post in this thread is not a retraction, then you have clearly displayed your lack of integrity, backbone, spine, whatever you wish to call it.

You have falsified data by not researching your data. You put it forth as authentic when in reality is as fabricated as the war on Christmas. I will not appologize for your seeming un-willingness to do research.

Your source said that the DSM considered homosexuality a paraphillia. This is false, the DSM does not say that. I posted a link to it.

 

[TheManeki]

no. it comes from a sincere desire to see them repent

Luk 15:7

This is where I ask you to prove homosexuality is a sin, you quote scripture from a "literalist" position to prove your point, and I cite the same passages using contextual arguments to prove the opposite point. Then we repeat. Kinda like arguments with people who say the Bible says the earth is the center of the universe.

I still want somebody to tell me exactly what is the negative material consequence of monogamous gay relationships. If God forbids it, He has a reason for it.

 

[NeTrips]

You added four top ones....

You are deliberately fabricating evidence....

...call you on your manufacture of evidence....

Sleezie,

I added nothing to the text cited. I fabricated nothing. I manufactured nothing. I have falsified nothing.

Yet you have shown yourself for what you truly are, a coward. There's really not much lower than a person who disparages others and refuses to admit when they have made a mistake. What a truly sad and pathetic little creature.

 

[NeTrips]

This is where I ask you to prove homosexuality is a sin, you quote scripture from a "literalist" position to prove your point, and I cite the same passages using contextual arguments to prove the opposite point. Then we repeat. Kinda like arguments with people who say the Bible says the earth is the center of the universe.

I still want somebody to tell me exactly what is the negative material consequence of monogamous gay relationships. If God forbids it, He has a reason for it.

I'll ignore the scriptural gymnastic demonstrations for now. But as for the negative consequences, I thought it brought about discrimination and such?

 

[TheManeki]

I'll ignore the scriptural gymnastic demonstrations for now. But as for the negative consequences, I thought it brought about discrimination and such?

I think that comes from men, not God.

Did being black or female earlier in the history of the US bring discrimination from men or from God?

 

[Phred]

I'll ignore the scriptural gymnastic demonstrations for now. But as for the negative consequences, I thought it brought about discrimination and such?

This argument sounds remarkably familiar. "We can't let those white folks mix with those black folks, what about the children? They'll be discriminated against!" Only thing is... discrimination isn't brought about by the behavior of those who are victims of it. It's like blaming the rape victim for the acts of the rapist. Discrimination is the fault of those who discriminate without a valid cause.

 

[NeTrips]

I think that comes from men, not God.

Of course that comes from men, you asked about material consequences. The spiritual consequence, as i am sure you know, is eternal seperation from God.

 

[TheManeki]

Of course that comes from men, you asked about material consequences. The spiritual consequence, as i am sure you know, is eternal seperation from God.

You gave us a material consequence from men, and a supposedly spiritual consequence from God.

Where is the material consequence from God?

 

[NeTrips]

This argument sounds remarkably familiar. "We can't let those white folks mix with those black folks, what about the children? They'll be discriminated against!" Only thing is... discrimination isn't brought about by the behavior of those who are victims of it. It's like blaming the rape victim for the acts of the rapist. Discrimination is the fault of those who discriminate without a valid cause.

phred, if possible, leave race out of your justification for your depraved behaviour. we really take offense to your riding the coat tails of our victory.

 

[NeTrips]

You gave us a material consequence from men, and a supposedly spiritual consequence from God.

Where is the material consequence from God?

In case you missed this:

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[TheManeki]

In case you missed this:

Not material, dude. Try again.

 

[NeTrips]

Not material, dude. Try again.

very material to the discussion, dudah.

have you chosen to ignore other parts of the bible or do only make yourself an equal to God when it comes to homosexuality?

 

[IzzyPop]

Let's see what the experts say:
Page numbers are from " Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582.]
Heterosexuality: the universal norm: sexual interaction with the opposite sex.
Homosexuality: sexual interaction with persons of the same sex.
Bisexuality: sexual interaction with both males and females.
Transgenderism: an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/kings, and transsexualism.
Pedophilia: "sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account." (p.571)
Transsexuality: the condition in which a person’s "gender" identity is different from his or her anatomical sex.
Transvestitism: the condition in which a person is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other sex.
Transvestic fetishism: for males, "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing." (p. 575)
Autogynephilia: the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman. (p. 574)
Voyeurism: "obtaining sexual arousal through the act of observing unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity." (p. 575)
Exhibitionism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one’s genitals to an unsuspecting stranger." (p. 569)
Fetishism or Sexual Fetishism: "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the use of nonliving objects (e.g. female undergarments)." (p. 570)
Zoophilia: becoming excited by and/or engaging in sexual activity with animals. (p. 576)
Sexual Sadism: "recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person." (p. 574)
Sexual Masochism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer." (p. 573)
Necrophilia: sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse. (p. 576)
Klismaphilia: erotic pleasure derived from enemas. (p. 576)
Telephone Scatalogia: the compulsion to utter obscene topics over the phone. (p. 576)
Urophilia: sexual arousal associated with urine. (p. 576)
Coprophilia: sexual arousal associated with feces. (p. 576)
Partialism: "sexual arousal obtained through exclusive focus on part of the body."(p. 576)
Gender Identity Disorder: "a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex," along with "persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex." (p. 576)
Frotteurism: "touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person." (p. 570)

This is nothing more then a propaganda piece. I just returned form the library where I read the same edition of the DSM that these page number refer to. Nowhere in the chapter on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders do the words 'heterosexual', 'homosexual', or 'bisexual' appear. No where in the index do those words appear. The people that put this list together intentionally conflated the 6 definitions without page numbers to the paraphilias listed to scare the voters in Illinois to vote against a specific bill (SB 101).

The group that issued this letter is Concerned Women for America. I would hardly call them experts.