I have a gay marriage question?

Y'all seem to have trouble under standing the difference between normal and not normal:

Normal ---- Not Normal

 

Yes, because they're gay.

 

So if I found a picture of a man and women in a thong with tassels their nipples and a leash around their neck, and put it next to a picture of two average looking men, do you think I would have a point?

If not, why do you think you have a point? Yes, there are gay people who do pretty freaky things in public, as there are straight people who do. That says nothing of the mal-adaptation or mental distress of the entire group.

There is normal and there is abnormal, and then there is the question of if it's maladaptive and causes mental distress. You seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference.

Here, since you like picture books.

Abnormal but not maladaptive or distressful



abnormal and maladaptive or distressful

 

Y'all seem to have trouble under standing the difference between maladaptive and not maladaptive:
View attachment 15545
Not Maladaptive
View attachment 15544
Maladaptive

 

Wait so let me see if I am getting this right?

Normal?

http://isawyournanny.blogspot.com/2010/07/cl-wtf_527.html

Abnormal?

http://www.brides.com/blogs/aisle-say/2012/07/first-gay-military-base-wedding.html

See Patriot, we can also find pictures of extremely bizarre looking heterosexual couples and perfectly normal looking homosexual couples. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of sexual orientation, some people are just weird.

 

Fine, let's say the second picture is maladaptive. What does that have to do with gay people as a whole? And what does the first picture have to do with straight people as a whole? There are gay people that look and act like the first picture, and straight people that look and act like the second (see Pasithea's post above). Your insistance on linking the image of the second to gays categorically is disingenuous.

 

The real answer is: Bigots need an 'excuse' to justify their bigoted thinking/actions.

There it is, right there.

 

Yeah, I can be a bit disingenuous at times. I love to get under your skin. Having said that, homosexuality is nonetheless abnormal behavior; the fact that psychologist have had to study it at all is an admission in and of itself. I don't think there has ever been a study to see if heterosexuality is a mental illness or not.

 

ab·nor·mal/abˈnôrməl/
Adjective:
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.

Being in a relationship with someone of the same sex may be abnormal for you, but it is totally normal for those who are gay. It would be abnormal and ultimately undesirable for them to seek out partnerships with opposite sex partners.

What we consider "normal" on an individual level is subjective and varies from person to person.

 

I would simply call that circular reasoning.... people thought of it as a disease, so they studied it.... therefore it's a disease.

Is the fact that it was studied a sign that they had it right and that it was a disorder? No, not really. It's certainly a sign that there where significant issues that needed to be understood about the population of homosexuals, but having issues does not mean that the homosexuality is a causation. Just as an example, studies have been done on native americans, studying depression in the population. Such a study is not mean to imply being native american is itself a disease (although who knows, maybe they can find a genetic cause). No, it's just meant to understand a psychological issue that is predominant among that population of individuals.

I submit that homosexuality was studied in large part because of

A: Preconceived notions that it is a problem, possibly rooted in religious history.
B: The perception of real problems from homosexuals who were caught doing inappropriate or criminal things or suffering from depression.
C: The lack of awareness of "normal behaving" non-criminal homosexuals who hid in the closet, making it so that society only saw the criminals and those behaving inappropriately.
D: A sincere curiosity about such a striking difference from normal behavior, particularly in a time where socialization was very narrow..... everyone got married at 18/19 and had kids, anyone else stood out like a sore thumb.

Studies performed in the early to mid 1900's largely reinforced the idea of homosexuality as a disease, often showing that homosexuals had comorbid problems such as depression and criminal behavior, often involving crude behavior in inappropriate public places, and sever drug and alcohol problems, and of course suicide.

But the key here is the correlation does not equal causation, particularly when you're looking back to the mid to early 1900's when the process of creating good, scientifically rigorous statistical models and sampling were still in development. Studies on homosexuals in this time were almost universally done on homosexuals that were incarcerated, in mental institutions or otherwise seeking psychiatric help. Obviously a pretty bias source, but such was typical of the rudimentary practices back in the day when the science of psychology and statistical modeling was new. With sources like that it was easy to characterize homosexuality as a severe mental disorder with comorbidity with a variety of other psychological disorders. There was a high interest in studying this problem.

 

Of course 'homosexuality' is no disease. And people today SHOULD know that. I'm not buying the BS, that people don't know; I'll just make sure to remind myself that those who claim it is some "disease", are simply BLINDED BY THEIR BIGOTRY.

 

But we aren't talking about what we consider "normal" on an individual level. We are talking about what is normal with regard to human sexuality. The norm is heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not the norm, it deviates from the norm. This is why it is intellectually dishonest for medical professionals to pretend that homosexuality is completely normal behavior when by any definition of the word "normal" it obviously is not. It is not only a deviation of normal psychological behavior but also manifests itself in physiologically deviant behaviors both socially and physically.

Did I say disease? I thought I said defect, or abnormality. I don't see how your argument holds water because it is a behavioral abnomality, thus the reason it was studied by people in the medical field who study behavioral abnomalities.

I agree that homosexuality is not a disease. I find it irronic that those who are bigoted and intolerant against long held religious beliefs cry bigotry against those for whom they are intolerant. It seems to me that it is quite a gymnastic flipping and bastardization of the term "bigot" that those who are the actual victims of bigotry have now been labeled the bigots.

 

Usage of the word "normal" in statistics varies with context.

Studies have indicated homosexuality as a "normal" variance in sexuality. Normal as in a predictable, reliable variation.

Are most people "normally" heterosexual? Yes.

Is it "normal" for each generation to have a reliable percentage of homosexuals? Yes.

Is a generation without homosexuals "normal"? No.

Is homosexuality the "norm" for most people? No.

Is it "abnormal" to have a generation with no homosexuals? Yes.

That's about it really.

 

Usage of the word "normal" in statistics varies with context.

Studies have indicated homosexuality as a "normal" variance in sexuality. Normal as in a predictable, reliable variation.

Are most people "normally" heterosexual? Yes.

Is it "normal" for each generation to have a reliable percentage of homosexuals? Yes.

Is a generation without homosexuals "normal"? No.

Is homosexuality the "norm" for most people? No.

Is it "abnormal" to have a generation with no homosexuals? Yes.

That's about it really.

 

Let's just put all the gays on an island.

 

Yes, let's send them all on a fantastic island cruise to the Bahamas, they all certainly deserve it! lol

 

I've heard Hawaii is nice too!!

 

The question (at least the one I was addressing) was if it was an abnormality of clinical significance. If you just want to call it an abnormality then fine, there's no disagreement.

 

Too funny..

 

I think it comes down to Christianity and what many Christians believe about the family unit and marriage. Many Christians would like us all to believe that homosexuality is destroying the family unit, the institution of marriage and family values. My belief is in a Country where 75% to 95% of Americans are self professed Christians (depending on the poll you believe), in which there is a 50% divorce rate, that it stands to reason that most marriages that fail are Christian marriages. So IMO Christians are doing a fine job at destroying the institution of marriage, the family unit and values all by them selves.

 

Buggers. You mean the democrats have alterior motives for supporting the gay agenda?

 

Anyway to answer the question I don't even know why its a political issue, but I think the word marriage has a lot to do with it, and some people don't realize that marriage means something different legally than an civil union. Personally I don't trust Romney at all, so I don't trust him to do the right thing with this issue either.

 

Amen, to ALL of the above!!