To: Hildred Castaigne
Your defense of the de-pathologizing of homosexuality and the "studies" that lead to it are completely negated by the BEHAVIOR of those who sought to do it. If their case was so scientifically air-tight and convincing, why was violence, threats, deceit, and the most obnoxious behavior, over several years, necessary to finally bully the medical community to acquiesce to their demands? Truth doesn't need these things.
The outlandish behavior itself points to a serious pathology. Speaking anecdotally (for which there IS often something to be said) every homosexual I have been closely familiar with has had other emotional and psychological issues. Every one was on psychotropic drugs, had serious anger issues, and had debilitating problems relating to other people. Most are liberals and have the mindless liberal view on virtually everything, despise Christianity, and had horrible relationships with parents and siblings.
posted on 03/22/2013 9:26:57 AM PDT
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
Your defense of the de-pathologizing of homosexuality and the "studies" that lead to it are completely negated by the BEHAVIOR of those who sought to do it.
First, I disagree that I'm "defending" the de-pathologizing. I simply commented on historical fact that's missing from the article. Also, those are studies, not "studies".
Secondly, I disagree with the behavior presumption. Edison was a complete a--hole whose behavior often went beyond unacceptable to "should be shot". Same with McArthur. Didn't make them wrong. Behavior has no effect on the math or science of something and I prefer to be above all that.( Matter of fact, most programmers I know behave badly. But again - that's more anecdote and thus not relevant.)
Truth doesn't need these things.
I agree, but we're talking science, not truth. Truth and fact are not the same thing.
Speaking anecdotally (for which there IS often something to be said)
And here you completely lost me. I'm in IT; our motto is "Data is not anecdata." I don't accept my OWN anecdotes as factual, so I'm certainly not going to accept anyone elses. Statistical evidence and proper testing trumps anecdotes any day of the week, every hour of the day.
Every one was on psychotropic drugs, had serious anger issues, and had debilitating problems relating to other people.
And I've worked with homosexuals who weren't on any drugs, were the mildest and calmest people you ever met, and had no problems relating to anybody. And I've known straights who were drugged out, had serious anger issues, and couldn't relate to other people. See? There's anecdotal "evidence" for you. Anecdotes are meaningless. Let's stick with science and fact.
If you want to argue moral turpitude and how it's a sin against God, great. I'll listen to you all day. But let's not confuse personal and religious belief with statistics and double-blind testing.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson