Openly gay in Poland

well said mate!!

IronsE11 GOLD MEMBER Edited by: IronsE11 Today, 12:47

IronsE11 GOLD MEMBER Today, 13:09

Adequately addressed.

As stated by Nash, my good sheep-man, there are often a number of solutions to any given problem. For many, the simple solution can be the best one. In this particular case, my brother and I have quite empirically proven the effectiveness of an ass-whupping in providing Instant Discipline to dorm-happy college freshmen.

Though I'll admit, if the total number of male+female > 5, it's often better just to call the cops.


How mature. Keep calling her a man, that makes you look cleverer...


Wrong. By your reasoning, somebody with paranoid schizophrenia is just imaginative and careful.


Instead, you call her a man. Very clever... you guys really do justice to your cause!

He is a MAN, read his profile you fool!

Ouch.
Sorry about that, Sasha. D=

Oh dear, we have another one. Please explain how my reasoning suggests that. I was refering specifically to a mindset which prevents procreation, in direct response to the following assertion:


So if something prevents people procreating (i.e. contraception or a mindset which chooses not to procreate) it is therefore an illness? Come on Pan, it's not that hard to understand.


S(he) is registered as male on PF.

Not the sharpest tool are you? A tool nonetheless though.

"Sickness" implies some form of immobility, incapability or any other barricade that bars ppl from performing normally, or what is expected/defined as normal within society. I grant that there probably will be homosexuals that will not be able to perform normally within society, but most likely there is something else wrong with them in that case. Also, I would like to point out that there are quite some heterosexuals which are not capable to function normally in society. What a person does in his private time in the private confinements of their homes is totally their business and not to others to judge upon. Sometimes there are manifestations of open homosexuality in the form of parades, festivals, et cetera, and in most countries, except few, these are tolerated and accepted as they are highly organized and kept within well defined borders. But these manifestations are not on a regular basis like every week. Unlike heterosexual manifestations, which nearly happen on a daily basis in the form of nightclubs, having sex in someone else's garden, harrassing women et cetera.

Given the number of heterosexual manifestations in public, compared to the number of homosexual manifestations in public, I would definitively not say that homosexuality is a disruption of society. Second point is, regarding to the opening of this post, homosexuals are perfectly capable of performing jobs, functions and the like in public life without the note about their sexual preference. In fact there are more disruptions by heterosexuals not being capable of performing normal functionality in public life than homosexual disruptions.

Concluding, based on the number of incidents, manifestations and disruptions, the label "sickness" would rather go to the heterosexuals if you want to confine the term strictly within the boundaries I mentioned in the opening of this post.


Conclusion: Sasha is a she-male?

M-G (is this intelligent and coherent enough?)

Your point is the equivalent of claiming that Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is not a disease because people with it are capable of eating with their hands and using public washrooms when absolutely necessary, or that anyone who chooses to eat with fork and knife or use soap to wash their hands has OCD.


Sharp enough that your straw-man arguments and word games don't actually work on me. You're playing the "looks invincible on the surface" game. I'm well familiar with it.


Reproducing, which homosexuality bars people from doing, is normal human behavior. We're talking biology and psychology here, not sociology.

Well provide a rational response then.


No it isn't. I think you have completely misunderstood. My point is merely to disprove the following statement as a response to the assertion that homosexuality is an illness:


The wider argument has nothing to do with the definition of homosexuality as an illness regardless, it is about whether or not something should be normalized. I have already given an ironic view on the notion of "localizing" those with an illness/disability.


As I have stated before, this is utter rubbish. I know plenty of homosexual people who have reproduced. Your entire argument is based on this falsehood.

Biological aspect:

Does being homosexual make one's seed infertile? Can a homosexual man, or woman, not produce children when they have (successful) intercourse with a member of the opposite sex?

Sociological/Psychological aspects:

There are plenty of examples of family-fathers who got married in the 50's and 60's, had children and later on came out of the closet as being homosexual. They only got married because of prejudices like this, which made most of their life miserable as they went against their nature. And it is safe to assume that as long as a homosexual does not have such great moral inflictions as for example John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer (which was actually a necrofile) that they go out an kill lots of ppl, there would be no objection against their psychological state.

But as for serial killers like Gacy and Dahmer, of which the first one clearly killed because of his homosexuality and the second one had homosexuality as a side-effect for his bigger problem, necrofilism (both should be regarded as excesses, nasty incidents), there are plenty examples of heterosexual serial killers like Ted Bundy, Ridgeway (the green river killer) and even of bi-sexual serial killers: Henry Lee Lucas; pedofiles: Lopez (the monster of the Andes), the Rostov ripper. And the list of exceptions and excesses goes on - for every sexual variation there would be a serial killer.

M-G (it's a wonderful, wonderful world - just ask your friendly neighbourhood serial killer)

Exactly, his whole argument falls flat on its a.s.s

So if homosexuals can make children, and they do, what are other symptons which can affect the rest of the society. Because im sure when people states it is a sickness which needs cure, they dont say it because they care about the homosexual individual but they care about how it may affect them personally.

Some pages above, he also stated that he didnt wanted to be affected by this disease, so implying that its contagious.

This by being only a psychological disease, can be transmitted?

That makes no sense at all!!

It makes perfect sense. It's simply what is known as rampant homophobia, and is often evident in people who are backward, close-minded and/or incapable of rational analysis.

...Adding to my previous post, I just wonder: if a person is into bestiality and he/she cannot cope with that, does he go out and kill loads of sheep, goats or horses? Or do they just start working in a (koosjer/halal) slaughterhouse?

M-G (questions, questions...)

To have entirely missed what I said earlier in such large fashion, and continue clinging on the same straw-man defense, you must either be a fool or think myself to be one. Let me put this into a three-step logic chain for you:

A) OCD prevents people from eating with unwashed hands.
B) People with OCD have before eaten with unwashed hands.
C) By your logic, OCD is therefore not a disease, or just does not impair a person's ability to eat with unwashed hands.

Do you get it, yet?


Does OCD cause one's hands to be unable to move towards the mouth unless recently washed? Fail. Psychological disorders do not work that way.

What Im saying is that aphro is really Miranda pretending to be a man on here.

Its a pretty wraped way of thinking but she has always been nuts.

I wouldnt buy into any of her crap!!

That devious Miranda!

:)

M-G (tsk tsk)

psycho chick...lol

Do you understand the difference between "homo-" and "bi-"? C'mon it's your native tongue.
"Bi-" is a different story but bisexual society is weirded to extinction too.


That's a quite usual statement once you realize you've got nothing else to say. Btw why can't I really be gay myself???


Let the history judge who's simpleton. :)


MG, I know that majority (not the vast though) of nowadays doctors officially doesn't consider homosexuality illness. And?..
At least I'm glad you cared to open wiki on this question.


I don't. Any back up or you simply didn't get the sense of the word "sheep" in the context? The cliche you used (about communist-soviet thinking *here I'm glad you knew those two words*) doesn't make you point any more clear either.

Seriously... Who gives a toss??

If people have an issue with homosexuality then they are probably stupid, confused, uneducated or religious.

How does OCD prevent people from eating with unwashed hands if people with OCD have eaten with unwashed hands? How does homosexuality stop people from reproducing when countless homosexuals have reproduced?

And to think that YOU accuse ME of using the straw-man defence! Laughable, you couldn't make it up. I have dismantled Sasha's argument which simply states (for the 4th time):


I am not arguing whether homosexuality should be defined as an illness or not, only that Sasha's definition is unapplicable. I am not refuting a "straw man" I am refuting a direct position taken by Sasha.

As stated before, the wider argument is not about how homosexuality is defined, but whether it should be normalized and accepted. I have used the concept of disability to illustrate why the "localization" of homosexuality is a ridiculous notion.


Do you still stand by this rather comical assertion?


I understand perfectly.


Yes homo-, Not bi-. Sexuality is a wide spectrum, but I wouldn't expect you wo be able to grasp that concept.

Look, there really is little point in continuing this argument, when you clearly have such poor knowledge of the subject matter. It may be the case that homosexuality is so repressed where you come from, that you have little or no experience of talking to (and therefore understanding) openly gay people.

People are scared of what they don't know or understand. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on you, and for that I apologise.


Quite.

You may play with words as long as you want. That can't change the sense of my initial notion. The one who's really homosexual (male) can't say if he wants women or not. It goes without saying. He doesn't. The problem about the real homosexuality is that it can generate among the youth (first and foremost) cases of the "fake homosexuality" when people want to be homosexual simply because it's a fashion (which was promoted by countless gay-parades and people like you who says it's normal).


I am not homophobic. :) Which I actually proved in my very first statement. Care to disprove? All you've done so far is going on name calling and trying to twist my points so that they may fit your delusional posts. I see your hysteria. Pls feel free to "tear apart my pathetic argument". I'm all ears.


No problem. Alexander is a full name, Sasha is a diminutive in Russian. Probably "Olek" in Polish. :)


You're discrediting now your mostly smart nation.

P.S. Quantity guys doesn't mean quality... You may draw here the whole international gay community. Would that make you sound any more convincing?

he's said countless times that the case was of homosexuals having a kid, i put it in simple words, homo man goes to doctor, homo man leaves sperm, doctor puts it in woman belly, man and woman have child...That does not make the Homo man be bisexual,his preferences wont change.

I will cite your own words again:


Don't you see anything wrong with this?

If we consider a sickness as a reason for persecussion, then we are back to the medieval times. nevertheless if this person is happy for being gay, happy with its life, and do not bother others, what damage does it cause to you? why should this person be singled out, and experimented with ( yes any treatment given towards homosexuality is an experiment yet)

but if you start preeching about normality then you will make me laugh. in every culture there has been homosexuality (chinese greek, arabian) which was seen as normal back then. Now the point is does not time and culture defines what is "normal" so to say

20 years ago for you it was normal not to have a voice or speak against your gobernment, and now it is normal for you, since you changed from communism to capitalism...NORMAL IS RELATIVE...


This has to be the most comical thing i've ever read in this forum..seriously hilarious...

supposing this alucination is real and could happen, supposing. How does it bothers you personally?

I mean your only defences are the spread of the homosexuality, but untill now you do not come up with a reason...only the spread is bad, the spread is bad,.,.but tell me, why is bad?

And I showed the weak spot of your concept. Nobody wants to be blind, deaf, legless. Everybody knows that it's an impairment. Nobody says "it's alright". Other people are trying to help disable, support them, help them, cure them. Children won't grow up blind, deaf or legless just because they've seen such people on TV. Did you get the difference? Did you finally understand where the problem was? Do not say it is normal, do not promote homosexuality. :) That's it. Just read and comprehend.

I'm ok with treating them as disables... just don't say being deaf is soooo gay! :)


Do you need further comments or highlited spots are enough for you? :) Doctor, sweety... doctor... and a woman... surrogate mother. The healthy man needs none of those.


It could fit homosexuals too. :)

Well you stay firm on the quota that it is a disease because they can't reproduced, well with the help of doctors or without, they can have children.

So a homosexual who fucks a girl has a child, is not sick anymore? very simple isnt it?

But you have not answered my other questions in my previous comment. dare to give it a shot??

Oh, guess you're right, then. OCD has no effect on people whatsoever, and is in no way a disease or impairment.

Logical consequences of your petty attempts at word games, or complete ignorance in the field of psychology (public schooling in the States?).

met a loooooot of hetero men needing the doctor to procreate dude... dont just talk our of ur a.r.s.e

Sasha, you are simply wrong on so many levels.

This is a major problem with your argument. If you genuinelly think that people can become homosexual (i.e. they find members of their own sex physically atractive) purely because homosexuality is accepted by society, then you are totally ignorant in regards to the nature of homosexuality.


It's already been done:


Do you stand by this statement?

If so, do you believe that people who choose not to procreate or use contraception are ill? After all, you have defined something which "prevents people to procreate and adapt" as an illness.


Again, you completely understand the nature of homosexuality. PEOPLE DON'T CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Normalizing or accepting homosexuality will not turn people gay, likewise, condemnation of homosexuality will not prevent homosexual tendencies occuring in humans. If you can grasp this very simple fact, you will understand that your argument is totally flawed.

Disability naturally occurs in humans yet disabled people are catered for and not ostracized. Why should gay people be treated diferently? Gay can't be cured, believe me, I know plenty of gay people who wish they weren't. Multiple Sclerosis can't be cured. When someone is diagnosed, should they then be "localized". Should we prevent disabled people from appearing on tv or interacting outside their community as to ensure that disability is not promoted? It's a ridiculous notion.


What about a man who fires blanks? Should he be "localized"? What if young kids get the idea of becoming "fake jaffas". What then?


I didn't say that. You can define OCD however you want (disease, impairment, imperfection). I know people who are biologically overweight which acts as an impairment when running around a football pitch. I know people with a lower IQ than others which acts as an impairment in their dailly lives. The vast majority of humans have imperfections, what actually defines something as normal? How "stupid"do you have to be until you are classified as having "learning difficulties"?

Regardless of the above, how does homosexuality act as an impairment? Homosexuals can (and often do) have children, they just often chose not to (because they don't find woment atractive). Some heterosexual people make the same choice (not to have children) for different reasons (financial, personal etc.). What is the difference, and why should the former be ostracized for it? After all HOMOSEXUALITY NATURALLY OCCURS in humans and animals.

PAN, regardless of whether you define homosexuality as an illness, provide a good reason for the ostracization of homosexuals which goes beyond the already pedalled falsehood that acceptance of homosexuality is some form of indoctrination which can turn people gay!

.....amen

See... you so carried away with your "gay-is-normal"-defending that didn't even notice how you admitted they were not normal. Sweety, those who need a doctor to procreate are ill... more or less.

Once again: I'm not homophobic, homosexuals are part of any society. The only things I said was that they were ill. You've quoted me for 1000s times obviously because you've felt your counterarguments didn't have legs to stay on.


This is either rhetoric or tremendously foolish question. Pick what you're up to. I'll only ask: do you wanna HIV to develop?


Oh yes... yes please... oh no... you said nothing again. That reminded me of my good old times in kindergarten:

Pasha (Pavel): Ti durak! (You're fool)
Sasha (Alexander): Net, ti durak! (No, you're fool)

:)


Oh yes... you've beaten me again. :)) 2:1


It's not simple, moreover it's not a fact. :)


You don't seem to catch my concept of localization. Homosexuality may or may not be treated... (I wouldn't assert either of those). What the hell does it have to do with my point? MUltiple sclerosis as well as HIV is not treated too but they're anyway go to doctor and make the quality of their lives better. Your illness may be incurable, that doesn't make you healthy.


It is. But I didn't say that. You said. :)