Homosexuality!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.

How is it the same thing?


I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?

I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...

I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.

Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/

It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.

At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.

I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.

Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was  obviously on a wind-up.

[Sriram]

It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.

How is it the same thing?


I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?

I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...

I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.

Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/

It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.

At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.

I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.

Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was  obviously on a wind-up.

NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a  disease or any such personal comment.  I expressed a opinion in the OP in line with the Wiki article that I have linked. Leonard in fact has been very sensible  in his reply 1.

[Shaker]

NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a  disease or any such personal comment.

You are on record as stating that in your opinion homosexuality is akin to a disease or an illness. That record is your own OP:

... some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a  disease and does not need to be cured!  But I tend to disagree.

So that's point one taken care of - homosexuality, to you, is a disease which should be cured.

Point two is that trent and Len are gay (homosexual, if you prefer), therefore, following on from point one, you are committed to the view that they both have this "disease."

[Nearly Sane]

Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was  obviously on a wind-up.

Not a problem, while I suspect you are right and Sriram is on a wind up. It just happens to be on a subject that I refuse to tolerate or ignore.

[Aruntraveller]

Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?

So Sririam will you answer this question which you failed to answer way up this thread.

A simple Yes or No will do.

[Nearly Sane]

NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a  disease or any such personal comment.

You are on record as stating that in your opinion homosexuality is akin to a disease or an illness. That record is your own OP:

Sriram states he thinks homosexuality is a disease, trent is homosexual, ergo sriram regards trent as diseased. Seems a relatively straightforward piece of logic, or am I missing something?

[Maeght]

I agree that the Dawkins site article did not talk about the whole gamut as the Wiki article did.

Is that a clever way of admitting that you were wrong?

My intention was to highlight that even your 'patron saint' Dawkins...

Don't be silly ..

seems to endorse the view that homosexuality  could be epigenetic in origin.

And nobody here has disputed that.

But my opinion was precisely what the Wiki article in the OP said.

"Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia. Prenatal hormone therapy may also be used to reduce the probability of homosexuality in females by compensating the effects of androgen overexposure"

'similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia.'  Doesn't get any clearer than that. Why don't you and others just face it?!

Again, no one is disputing that but it is your referrence to a cure, homosexuals not having normal lives and that parents could change their childrens sexuality which are the issue - has has been pointed out many times - why don't you just face that. 

[Sriram]

Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?

So Sririam will you answer this question which you failed to answer way up this thread.

A simple Yes or No will do.

No..I'll not answer that question....because I don't know anything about you personally.  I don't make personal comments (unlike most of you). And it makes no difference to me what you are.

And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.

How is it the same thing?


I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?

I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...

I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.

Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/

It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.

At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.

I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.

Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was  obviously on a wind-up.

NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a  disease or any such personal comment.  I expressed a opinion in the OP in line with the Wiki article that I have linked. Leonard in fact has been very sensible  in his reply 1.

Well, I have no problem with you expressing an opinion - I think Trent was right on page 2 or 3 where he said your opinion comparing homosexuality to diseases like diabetes is trivialising diabetes.

For example, my husband has diabetes and curing that is therefore important to me as it is life-threatening, whereas homosexuality isn't. Put it this way, if my husband turned out to be gay we could still be friends and he could still be a good dad, whereas with diabetes he could be very ill and then dead. So bad comparison IMO.

[Owlswing]

I think Rose has a point. After all, Matt, it was you who pointed out that some of our posters get all Katie Hopkins on occasion. People can be far more outspoken on forums (fora?) than in real life; I think anyone posting in a place such as this has to expect that to some extent although out of decency we all should be responsible enough to realise when we overstep the mark and wind up in.

I am sorry but, for once I have to disagree with you.

Sririam has mis-quoted both the article in his OP and also responses from posters on this thread.

He is wriggling like a fisherman's worm and getting the reactions he so obviously seeks.

Well, I for one am fed-up playing his game - he has provided absolutely no proof that his decision to compare homosexuality with diabetes as a disease (as it happens I suffer from the latter and occasionally. a lot more rarely now than when I was younger - the spirit be willing and the flesh weak and getting weaker) enjoy the former) has any validity. - I happily depart this particular thread.

Homosexuality is about as much of a curable disease as Sririam's Wumming and Trolling.

My mother had a expression for what he is doing - Sririam is making the bullets and getting other posters to fire them.

[Shaker]

No..I'll not answer that question....because I don't know anything about you personally.  I don't make personal comments (unlike most of you). And it makes no difference to me what you are.

Sheer cowardice, Sriram.

You have stated that homosexuality is, to you, a disease in need of cure. Trent is homosexual, therefore, logically you are committed to the view that he has this "disease." Yes or no? It's not difficult, just uncomfortable to you, which is exactly as it should be.

[Rhiannon]

#469 Matt, you don't seriously think I agree with anything at all that Sriram says, surely? I was just agreeing with Rose that if you turn up on Internet forums you're going to find views that aren't acceptable and ultimately responsibility on how to react to that lies with the individual.

[Sriram]

I agree that the Dawkins site article did not talk about the whole gamut as the Wiki article did.

Is that a clever way of admitting that you were wrong?

My intention was to highlight that even your 'patron saint' Dawkins...

Don't be silly ..

seems to endorse the view that homosexuality  could be epigenetic in origin.

And nobody here has disputed that.

But my opinion was precisely what the Wiki article in the OP said.

"Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia. Prenatal hormone therapy may also be used to reduce the probability of homosexuality in females by compensating the effects of androgen overexposure"

'similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia.'  Doesn't get any clearer than that. Why don't you and others just face it?!

Again, no one is disputing that but it is your referrence to a cure, homosexuals not having normal lives and that parents could change their childrens sexuality which are the issue - has has been pointed out many times - why don't you just face that.

What?!  I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.

I am not interested in discussing the role of parents in changing their childrens sexuality.  That's not the subject of this thread. You are harping on it again and again. Sort it out with your courts.... 

[Aruntraveller]

And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.

And yet you are free to make a personal remark (as well as a completely innaccurate remark) about NS. You are strange. 

Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?

That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?

[Shaker]

What?! I talked about a cure..yes.

Illness/diseases/afflictions are things in need of a cure ... why would homosexuality need a cure, Sriram?

[Shaker]

Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?

That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?

As has been so excellently put very recently:

It's not difficult, just uncomfortable to you, which is exactly as it should be.

 

[Sriram]

It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.

How is it the same thing?


I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?

I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...

I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.

Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/

It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.

At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.

I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.

Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was  obviously on a wind-up.

NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a  disease or any such personal comment.  I expressed a opinion in the OP in line with the Wiki article that I have linked. Leonard in fact has been very sensible  in his reply 1.

Well, I have no problem with you expressing an opinion - I think Trent was right on page 2 or 3 where he said your opinion comparing homosexuality to diseases like diabetes is trivialising diabetes.

For example, my husband has diabetes and curing that is therefore important to me as it is life-threatening, whereas homosexuality isn't. Put it this way, if my husband turned out to be gay we could still be friends and he could still be a good dad, whereas with diabetes he could be very ill and then dead. So bad comparison IMO.

Maybe...but that's the opinion expressed by scientists in the link I provided. So..people have to take it up with the researchers. They even compared it to cancer and schizophrenia.

[Shaker]

Maybe...but that's the opinion expressed by scientists in the link I provided. So..people have to take it up with the researchers. They even compared it to cancer and schizophrenia.

What are the names of these scientists? I notice that the Wiki article doesn't actually specify anybody who thinks that homosexuality should be cured, since the word who? is very telling in "some people [who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy." Exactly - who? Who has stated this? You're all over anything to do with epigenetics like the white on rice so presumably you should be able to tell us who is calling for this.

[Sriram]

Maybe...but that's the opinion expressed by scientists in the link I provided. So..people have to take it up with the researchers. They even compared it to cancer and schizophrenia.

What are the names of these scientists? I notice that the Wiki article doesn't actually specify anybody who thinks that homosexuality should be cured, since the word who? is very telling in "some people [who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy." Exactly - who? Who has stated this? You're all over anything to do with epigenetics like the white on rice so presumably you should be able to tell us who is calling for this.

No...find out for yourself.  I am not interested.  The article is enough authority for me.

[Rhiannon]

But you'd be wrong not to do so, Sriram. There's no citation for the 'some people', and the citation 11 actually links to an article that makes it clear that human variations are so great that epigenetics cannot 'cure' homosexuality.

[Shaker]

No...find out for yourself. I am not interested. The article is enough authority for me.

What a craven coward. Stir pot and run away when challenged ... vile.

[Maeght]

What?!  I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.

From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »

I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal.  If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!   

So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?

I am not interested in discussing the role of parents in changing their childrens sexuality.  That's not the subject of this thread. You are harping on it again and again. Sort it out with your courts....

You first mentioned the possibility and seemed to suggest it was fine. The fact you don't want to discuss it when this is picked up is very telling Sriram.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?

So Sririam will you answer this question which you failed to answer way up this thread.

A simple Yes or No will do.

No..I'll not answer that question....because I don't know anything about you personally.  I don't make personal comments (unlike most of you). And it makes no difference to me what you are.

And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.

where am I lgoing in the statement: Sriram has stated he thinks homosexuality is a disease, Trent is homosexual, ergo Sriram thinks Trent is diseased?


Your inability to have discussions without personalizing it is most revealing

[Shaker]

What?!  I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.

From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »

I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal.  If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!   

So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?

I am not interested in discussing the role of parents in changing their childrens sexuality.  That's not the subject of this thread. You are harping on it again and again. Sort it out with your courts....

You first mentioned the possibility and seemed to suggest it was fine. The fact you don't want to discuss it when this is picked up is very telling Sriram.

... like his unwillingness to discuss the scientists who think that homosexuality can be/should be "cured" when that's picked up too. He's not interested, apparently.

[Shaker]

Answer came there none.

All together now: brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin ...