Homosexual/transgender CAVEMAN found
- Thread starter CptStern
- Start date
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 25
I only really need to say one thing, and unfortunately not very nicely: try reading.
Almost everything I can possibly attack about the post is summed up by this simple advice. Nevertheless, to kick a gay dog...
EDIT: I'm not going to say that anyone is "born" gay. At this point I have kind of abandoned making any conclusions. I am simply trying to respond to your manifest nonsense.
Almost everything I can possibly attack about the post is summed up by this simple advice. Nevertheless, to kick a gay dog...
No. Among many species the portions are significant. From the wiki article alone: 25% black swans, 20% mallards, 45% of elephants, a varying but huge proportion of giraffes. Try reading.
Not if you don't read properly.
They obviously do. I am talking about cases in which animals consistently choose one hole over the other. Try reading.
It is clear that they do, given aforesaid consistent choice and the fact that in some species hetero and homo activity serve different and complementary purposes. Try reading.
This would appear to be a very limited definition since you have been using ancient Japanese and Roman models as your examples. Try reading your own posts. Also try reading the Kinsey Report (admittedly also reading about the problems with it - but I don't think the high prison proportion invalidates the whole study). In fact, if you restrict yourself to exclusive preference, that ends up looking like an argument that homosexuality is 'natural' (i.e. always occurs in roughly similar proportions). 'Institutional' homosexuality varies with culture but since even in ancient Rome there were individuals remarked to be boy-lovers specifically there seems to always be a certain preferential contingent. Of course we know shit-all about how sexuality really works.
True enough, no admonition here, but some animals do exactly the same. It may be for different reasons but they demonstrate the same exclusive choice. So the onus is on you to explain the difference, hopefully going beyond "humans can think and animals can't" leftover Christian platitudes. This was actually explained above. Try...oh, I can't say it.
What desire and urges fill the animal may be 'accidental' (whatever that means) but there is no mistake on the animal's part. See above (i.e. try reading).
EDIT: I'm not going to say that anyone is "born" gay. At this point I have kind of abandoned making any conclusions. I am simply trying to respond to your manifest nonsense.
GreatEmperor
Full of shit...
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 9
Try relating these random stupid factoids please how about that?
If its instinctual than they are born gay, exactly as you are claiming does not happen, thats instinct. If you would actually relate this behavior to humans in some way, we could go further.
Dont use wikipedia, especially on an issue as political as this, its pointless. The speculations on the "purpose" of the activity are so profoundly supposition that Im amazed you just stated that they are distinguishable from other sexual behaviors, in spite of you making "no conclusions". The section on insects was utterly worthless especially, these things have NO brain, they make no distinction, and its a very narrow range of insects at that. In fact the social animals seem to be pairing up with one specific animal, meaning the mistake was made previously and lets say stuck to.
The fact that you are enforcing this bizarre consensus means you have made a conclusion, its just very vague. You are absolutely defending the idea that there is some correlation between the various animal behaviors and a humans kink (inappropriate word maybe) that makes him unwilling to attempt sex with the opposite gender.
Im not being religious, quit trying to make me a "them" humans have self awareness, animals dont, its physically an extension of the standard brain stem that animals dont have. That makes us capable of all types of perpetuating disciplines as well as obsessions, disfunctions, and the ability to socially engineer the debate to make our behaviors appear unavoidable
If its instinctual than they are born gay, exactly as you are claiming does not happen, thats instinct. If you would actually relate this behavior to humans in some way, we could go further.
Dont use wikipedia, especially on an issue as political as this, its pointless. The speculations on the "purpose" of the activity are so profoundly supposition that Im amazed you just stated that they are distinguishable from other sexual behaviors, in spite of you making "no conclusions". The section on insects was utterly worthless especially, these things have NO brain, they make no distinction, and its a very narrow range of insects at that. In fact the social animals seem to be pairing up with one specific animal, meaning the mistake was made previously and lets say stuck to.
The fact that you are enforcing this bizarre consensus means you have made a conclusion, its just very vague. You are absolutely defending the idea that there is some correlation between the various animal behaviors and a humans kink (inappropriate word maybe) that makes him unwilling to attempt sex with the opposite gender.
Im not being religious, quit trying to make me a "them" humans have self awareness, animals dont, its physically an extension of the standard brain stem that animals dont have. That makes us capable of all types of perpetuating disciplines as well as obsessions, disfunctions, and the ability to socially engineer the debate to make our behaviors appear unavoidable
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 25
I don't think the scientific evidence at all supports your claim that there is this absolute divide between the awareness of animals and our own awareness. Various animals are capable of passing the mirror test they feel grief; they use tools; they exhibit complex social behaviours; meanwhile, humans are often less self-aware than they think considering all the biases that operate in their brains. At the very least they seem capable of motivated behaviour directed towards each other. I'm intrigued by your claim that we possess "physically an extension of the standard brain stem that animals don't have" and would like you to source it, but at the moment the wall you're building between animals and humans is pure supposition. I mention Christianity because the claims you're making are a hangover from the idea that humans and only humans have souls. I'm not dividing you into any special category of human beings except the category of 'people who are wrong'.
I am not enforcing anything and wikipedia is not just useless. Almost every claim there is sourced to a scientific paper or a journal article. If you have some reason to doubt the conclucions of these scientists - for example if you have googled their name and found that they're known as unreliable - then please let me know. But all I've done is provided evidence and so far you have failed to provide any that matches it. The only manner in which this "consensus" is "enforced" is that I, um, have evidence and am analysing it. Obviously the insect examples are so distant from us as to be basically irrelevant to the discussion.
In your post you have offered a single concrete point: that what's actually happening is individual animals making 'mistakes' and then sticking to them. There are a lot of problem with this - let's take, for example, the 8% of rams who consistently choose males over females. It is very unlikely in this case that these rams have each individually made a mistake and then stuck to it considering that each ram's 'performance' was assessed with multiple tests and on multiple occasions. So that leaves two likely possibilities: either rams generally are unable to distinguish between their sexes, and 8% make a mistake, or 8% of rams are unable to distinguish between their sexes. I have not found any evidence to support either of these claims but I did find evidence against the first. Sheep are very good at distinguishing each other by smell. In fact most animals are very good at distinguishing each other. If 8% are not, cough up some backup. The study, by the way, is interesting reading. You should try reading it.
Other cases are more congruent with your claim. With isolated observations of particular penguin pairs, for instance, we might well say that we have no proof they are expressing a preference beyond fidelity to an original 'mistake'. Again I find it implausible that (considering the significant sexual dimorphism among penguins) any mistakes would be made in the first place. Still, these isolated examples may be an impasse.
Elephants, however, are not. In their case same sex relationships happen often between multiple individuals and are qualitatively different from hetero relationships. This is obviously not fidelity to a mistake but a consistent 'social' institution. Giraffes engage in same-sex mounting so often that it is silly to suggest such a huge proportion of them are mistaken (often there is no relationship involved; multiple individuals, similar preference). Likewise many instances of prevalent homosexuality among primates and other social animals. I have made no speculations about the purpose of this activity- I have made observations about the form it takes. You're thinking of your own argument, which speculates that all these animals are mistaking each other for the wrong sex (but that is speculation about motivation rather than purpose).
It is the height of cheek for you to fill your posts so full of misunderstandings and gaps that you force me to start simply addressing the wrong things you have said, and then lambast me for not relating things properly back to the original argument. When I said I had abandoned "making conclusions" - and I am sorry if this wasn't clear - I meant that I could not be bothered to try and make them anymore, not that I did not have them. I abandoned this effort because I have made it several times already in long posts which you have completely misunderstood or perhaps deliberately misconstrued. I have been engaged in a reactive effort against claims of your such as "animals don't care about which hole", "animals think they are doing a female", "animals never express a preference", and "homosexuality in animals is magically different from homosexuality in humans." It it any wonder we've gone off course?
You haven't responded specifically to my paraphrases above. You haven't engaged properly with my points. You just move the goalposts without supporting them with anything in particular, and restate things I have already challenged you on. You're not making any effort. Your tactics are limited to quibbling, distraction, straw men and ignorance. This is the key source of my frustration. Let's take the exchang above: first you claim my argument as "animals pair up with the same sex a sliver of the time." No, I said, the proportions are significant in many species and near ubiquitous in others. I cited some brief 'factoids'. In your next post you claimed these factoids didn't mean anything and weren't properly linked up even though they had been deployed specifically to counter a point you made. Whether knowingly or not you are buggering me about.
Nevertheless: yes, I am "defending the idea that there is some correlation between the various animal behaviours" and those of humans. I am doing this because there appears to be a correlation. The obvious grounds on which you could contest this are, for example, that the animal behaviours are too varied to go under a single classification, or to actually manage to properly distinguish homosexuality in humans from homosexuality in animals. You have so far made no significant thrust in these directions.
Here is the argument as I see it:
PROPOSITION: Homosexuality is effectively 'natural' and not 'cultural'.
- homosexual behaviour, defined simply as 'same sex intercourse', occurs widely among animals, including all primate species.
- homosexual behaviour, defined as a preference for the same sex, occurs less widely but still significantly in mammals and possibly significantly in birds.
- homosexual behaviour, defined simply as 'same sex intercourse', occurs widely among humans in many unrelated cultures.
- homosexual behaviour, defined as a preference, occurs significantly, but does not comprise the whole of homosexual activity.
- something 'cultural' would be limited to specific cultures and probably shared by all of them, unless parities can be justified by shared (relevant) circumstances
- something 'cultural' would likewise be limited to one species, unless parities can be justified by shared (relevant) circumstances
- sub-proposition: parities wide enough to be shared between species would be effectively 'natural'
- therefore, homosexuality cannot be called 'cultural' as opposed to 'natural'.
OBJECTION: animal homosexuality is different from homosexuality because
- animals don't make any preference
- animals don't distinguish between their sexes when looking for satisfaction
- animals make mistakes
- animal homosexuality is purely a matter of sexual stimulation
- sub-proposition: only preference proves 'real' homosexuality
COUNTER-OBJECTION:
- animals do demonstrably make preferences
- animals clearly do distinguish between their sexes, and choose one over the other, for various reasons
- animals demonstrate a consistent policy which would appear to rule out mistakes
- animal homosexuality is capable of encompassing social nuance, companionship and child-raising as well as pure sexual stimulation
- preference is too narrow a definition
OBJECTION (at great length) NULLIFIED.
So:
- homosexual behaviour in mammals cannot be significantly distinguished from homosexual behaviour in humans
- culture changes the form of homosexual activity but does not seem to be able to extinguish its presence.
- homosexuality, in both preferential and wider forms, arises basically ubiquitously
- therefore, while we do not know its mechanism, calling it 'purely cultural' cannot be supported.
Have I summarised this argument unjustly?
I am not enforcing anything and wikipedia is not just useless. Almost every claim there is sourced to a scientific paper or a journal article. If you have some reason to doubt the conclucions of these scientists - for example if you have googled their name and found that they're known as unreliable - then please let me know. But all I've done is provided evidence and so far you have failed to provide any that matches it. The only manner in which this "consensus" is "enforced" is that I, um, have evidence and am analysing it. Obviously the insect examples are so distant from us as to be basically irrelevant to the discussion.
In your post you have offered a single concrete point: that what's actually happening is individual animals making 'mistakes' and then sticking to them. There are a lot of problem with this - let's take, for example, the 8% of rams who consistently choose males over females. It is very unlikely in this case that these rams have each individually made a mistake and then stuck to it considering that each ram's 'performance' was assessed with multiple tests and on multiple occasions. So that leaves two likely possibilities: either rams generally are unable to distinguish between their sexes, and 8% make a mistake, or 8% of rams are unable to distinguish between their sexes. I have not found any evidence to support either of these claims but I did find evidence against the first. Sheep are very good at distinguishing each other by smell. In fact most animals are very good at distinguishing each other. If 8% are not, cough up some backup. The study, by the way, is interesting reading. You should try reading it.
If you feel you are not qualified or capable of finding the evidence or investigating it yourself (fair enough), maybe you should contact Ben Goldacre and ask him to investigate.
Other cases are more congruent with your claim. With isolated observations of particular penguin pairs, for instance, we might well say that we have no proof they are expressing a preference beyond fidelity to an original 'mistake'. Again I find it implausible that (considering the significant sexual dimorphism among penguins) any mistakes would be made in the first place. Still, these isolated examples may be an impasse.
Elephants, however, are not. In their case same sex relationships happen often between multiple individuals and are qualitatively different from hetero relationships. This is obviously not fidelity to a mistake but a consistent 'social' institution. Giraffes engage in same-sex mounting so often that it is silly to suggest such a huge proportion of them are mistaken (often there is no relationship involved; multiple individuals, similar preference). Likewise many instances of prevalent homosexuality among primates and other social animals. I have made no speculations about the purpose of this activity- I have made observations about the form it takes. You're thinking of your own argument, which speculates that all these animals are mistaking each other for the wrong sex (but that is speculation about motivation rather than purpose).
It is the height of cheek for you to fill your posts so full of misunderstandings and gaps that you force me to start simply addressing the wrong things you have said, and then lambast me for not relating things properly back to the original argument. When I said I had abandoned "making conclusions" - and I am sorry if this wasn't clear - I meant that I could not be bothered to try and make them anymore, not that I did not have them. I abandoned this effort because I have made it several times already in long posts which you have completely misunderstood or perhaps deliberately misconstrued. I have been engaged in a reactive effort against claims of your such as "animals don't care about which hole", "animals think they are doing a female", "animals never express a preference", and "homosexuality in animals is magically different from homosexuality in humans." It it any wonder we've gone off course?
You haven't responded specifically to my paraphrases above. You haven't engaged properly with my points. You just move the goalposts without supporting them with anything in particular, and restate things I have already challenged you on. You're not making any effort. Your tactics are limited to quibbling, distraction, straw men and ignorance. This is the key source of my frustration. Let's take the exchang above: first you claim my argument as "animals pair up with the same sex a sliver of the time." No, I said, the proportions are significant in many species and near ubiquitous in others. I cited some brief 'factoids'. In your next post you claimed these factoids didn't mean anything and weren't properly linked up even though they had been deployed specifically to counter a point you made. Whether knowingly or not you are buggering me about.
Nevertheless: yes, I am "defending the idea that there is some correlation between the various animal behaviours" and those of humans. I am doing this because there appears to be a correlation. The obvious grounds on which you could contest this are, for example, that the animal behaviours are too varied to go under a single classification, or to actually manage to properly distinguish homosexuality in humans from homosexuality in animals. You have so far made no significant thrust in these directions.
Here is the argument as I see it:
PROPOSITION: Homosexuality is effectively 'natural' and not 'cultural'.
- homosexual behaviour, defined simply as 'same sex intercourse', occurs widely among animals, including all primate species.
- homosexual behaviour, defined as a preference for the same sex, occurs less widely but still significantly in mammals and possibly significantly in birds.
- homosexual behaviour, defined simply as 'same sex intercourse', occurs widely among humans in many unrelated cultures.
- homosexual behaviour, defined as a preference, occurs significantly, but does not comprise the whole of homosexual activity.
- something 'cultural' would be limited to specific cultures and probably shared by all of them, unless parities can be justified by shared (relevant) circumstances
- something 'cultural' would likewise be limited to one species, unless parities can be justified by shared (relevant) circumstances
- sub-proposition: parities wide enough to be shared between species would be effectively 'natural'
- therefore, homosexuality cannot be called 'cultural' as opposed to 'natural'.
OBJECTION: animal homosexuality is different from homosexuality because
- animals don't make any preference
- animals don't distinguish between their sexes when looking for satisfaction
- animals make mistakes
- animal homosexuality is purely a matter of sexual stimulation
- sub-proposition: only preference proves 'real' homosexuality
COUNTER-OBJECTION:
- animals do demonstrably make preferences
- animals clearly do distinguish between their sexes, and choose one over the other, for various reasons
- animals demonstrate a consistent policy which would appear to rule out mistakes
- animal homosexuality is capable of encompassing social nuance, companionship and child-raising as well as pure sexual stimulation
- preference is too narrow a definition
OBJECTION (at great length) NULLIFIED.
So:
- homosexual behaviour in mammals cannot be significantly distinguished from homosexual behaviour in humans
- culture changes the form of homosexual activity but does not seem to be able to extinguish its presence.
- homosexuality, in both preferential and wider forms, arises basically ubiquitously
- therefore, while we do not know its mechanism, calling it 'purely cultural' cannot be supported.
Have I summarised this argument unjustly?
GreatEmperor
Full of shit...
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 9
Not very helpful are you, buddy? Im just wondering where this consensus came from, the bias here is unbelievable. Im assuming the assertation was made so frequently and so often your dumbasses just decided it was an integral part of being a forward-looking human being. The argument isnt even coherent, its something causes it because animals practice it. Now animals do have much the same instincts we do, but what I am saying is to prove that homosexuality is an instinct requires a general drive among the species, as in maternal or hunting behaviors, some will not lack it while others possess it. The fact that it is NOT that prevalent makes it far more likely a defect, like eating dung or rotten meat caused by the fact that animals, especially social animals, spend a lot of time together and form hierarchies etc. To say it is unavoidable for a sliver of their or especially the human species is a huge, gaping assumption
Bad^Hat
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 19,983
- Reaction score
- 530
You know things can be considered natural behaviour without occurring unanimously in humans on a purely instinctive level, right? It seems like you're trying to set an unattainable standard of evidence in order to write off what's right in front of your face (or right above your post, as the case would have it).
Can I ask what the substance of your argument is? You've stated that homosexuality is a "mistake" or a "defect" a few times and have even implied that it's not beyond our capacity to change. Do you have any evidence for that? Do you think people should try to change this sort of behaviour? Do you think that's healthy? Maybe you don't really care either way, but that seems to be what you're arguing towards, at least from my perspective.
Also, I called you dumb because you're mostly ignoring Sulk's posts and reasserting the same thing over and over again. You know, the thing you just accused him/us of.
Can I ask what the substance of your argument is? You've stated that homosexuality is a "mistake" or a "defect" a few times and have even implied that it's not beyond our capacity to change. Do you have any evidence for that? Do you think people should try to change this sort of behaviour? Do you think that's healthy? Maybe you don't really care either way, but that seems to be what you're arguing towards, at least from my perspective.
Also, I called you dumb because you're mostly ignoring Sulk's posts and reasserting the same thing over and over again. You know, the thing you just accused him/us of.
GreatEmperor
Full of shit...
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 9
What is right in front of my face, youre reasserting the same asinine point on animal behavior, its obvious some bias has made something oh so obvious to you that is not what Im sure most would consider proof.
As for natural behavior, you say that as if I am implying that if I do not see it as natural than it is an abomination or something. I am not saying they are doing something wrong so much as something that is the product of their environment, life. I swear when you ask me for my "substance" youre looking for me to say I want them in ze camps or something. It just seems like people view this assertion that it cannot be stopped as necessary to prevent abuse of those adolescents showing signs. If that is the case how about this buddy, treat it as a civil rights issue, people are allowed to be deviant as long as no harm is done. This is important because deviancy has very rigid and different definitions among different people, and it would stop what is, please show something substantive not already discussed if this is too harsh, some pretty soft science
As for natural behavior, you say that as if I am implying that if I do not see it as natural than it is an abomination or something. I am not saying they are doing something wrong so much as something that is the product of their environment, life. I swear when you ask me for my "substance" youre looking for me to say I want them in ze camps or something. It just seems like people view this assertion that it cannot be stopped as necessary to prevent abuse of those adolescents showing signs. If that is the case how about this buddy, treat it as a civil rights issue, people are allowed to be deviant as long as no harm is done. This is important because deviancy has very rigid and different definitions among different people, and it would stop what is, please show something substantive not already discussed if this is too harsh, some pretty soft science
Bad^Hat
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 19,983
- Reaction score
- 530
I'm going to stay out of the sciency side of things because my knowledge is pretty iffy on this topic (and many others), but logically your argument is a ****ing cul-de-sac. You're accusing people of believing it's natural merely because it's the status quo (maybe where you live), yet you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to the contrary. You make assertions, people counter with evidence, you largely ignore it and reassert your original case, they counter with more evidence, you accuse them of acting on their own bias. Come on, you must see how unreasonable you're being.
As far as what I suspected about your motivation, this line didn't really sit right with me, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it:
First of all - who the **** are you to say that certain cuisines are repugnant? :|
Secondly, what did you wish to imply by this sentence? Gayness isn't "insurmountable" - does that mean you believe that people could or should reform themselves from this defect? That's all I was asking above, and I could provide more quotes of you implying the very same thing.
Finally, assuming you're neutral on this issue, are you honestly suggesting that labeling homosexuals as deviants will free them from their current stigma in any way, rather than just reaffirming their position as second-rate citizens? I mean... wow. Okay.
As far as what I suspected about your motivation, this line didn't really sit right with me, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it:
First of all - who the **** are you to say that certain cuisines are repugnant? :|
Secondly, what did you wish to imply by this sentence? Gayness isn't "insurmountable" - does that mean you believe that people could or should reform themselves from this defect? That's all I was asking above, and I could provide more quotes of you implying the very same thing.
Finally, assuming you're neutral on this issue, are you honestly suggesting that labeling homosexuals as deviants will free them from their current stigma in any way, rather than just reaffirming their position as second-rate citizens? I mean... wow. Okay.
GreatEmperor
Full of shit...
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 9
Because the cuisine doesnt taste good to me, the **** do you think I mean? My tastes are different, that doesnt mean I was born hating it or that it is naturally shitty tasting to Russians in general. You really are not comprehending my point over butt hurt whining. You absolutely proved my point with this statement, the science is irrelevant because to go against "it is an unalienable part of this percent of the population" is seen as hatred. When I said deviant, I was not referring to myself, I dont view anything as truly deviant except maybe suicide as a way of avoiding public disgrace. The social norms of our time view it as deviant without a doubt, which Im saying is rectified by our current system of unalienable rights which defends your right to relate to another sexually in traditionally unacceptable ways. This does not require soft science or engineering the debate to accomplish
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 25
If homosexuality was voluntary, it would still be necessary to defend the rights of those who practice it. Like I said, I'm arguing against things you are saying that are wrong, not because I presume you to be a homophobe.
We're talking about issues of evidence here which you are simply not responding to. You can criticise "soft science" until you want but it is worthless until you respond specifically to any of the points (who's the one linking actual studies here?). So far you're just misconstruing things ("a sliver", lol) and ignoring what I've said. You keep accusing me of proposing an unwarranted causation, but my argument merely uses the ubiquity of the phenomenon as evidence against your (insanely presumptuous) theory of causation. Meanwhile you continue to invent goalposts that I struggle to fulfil. Oh, now it's got to be "instinctual" rather than "genetic", has it? And to be "instinctual" it has to be apparent among every member of a species, huh? Well, that's got me stumped. Until you actually respond substantially to my arguments, I am also pretty much done with this.
Of course I cannot help but note how incoherent your claims are.
Okay!
We're talking about issues of evidence here which you are simply not responding to. You can criticise "soft science" until you want but it is worthless until you respond specifically to any of the points (who's the one linking actual studies here?). So far you're just misconstruing things ("a sliver", lol) and ignoring what I've said. You keep accusing me of proposing an unwarranted causation, but my argument merely uses the ubiquity of the phenomenon as evidence against your (insanely presumptuous) theory of causation. Meanwhile you continue to invent goalposts that I struggle to fulfil. Oh, now it's got to be "instinctual" rather than "genetic", has it? And to be "instinctual" it has to be apparent among every member of a species, huh? Well, that's got me stumped. Until you actually respond substantially to my arguments, I am also pretty much done with this.
Of course I cannot help but note how incoherent your claims are.
"It is a defect that occurs among almost all animals to varying degrees and which basically happens all the time - naturally, if you will - due to the most basic conditions of our existence. At the same time, it is avoidable and cultural and not natural."GreatEmperor said:
Okay!
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,315
- Reaction score
- 62
really?
they changed it almost 40 years ago. get with the times or remain ignorant your choice
http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf
Yuri
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 4
oh **** off your high horse stern, i just wasn't sure what it was considered. it's a complex thing, and ive never actually done the research. so give me a break, it was a legitimate question. but thanks, i was curious as to how it was defined in the scientific community.
GreatEmperor
Full of shit...
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 9
Stern may be the great orator of our time, and the internet. That sounds like you attacking me for something you are justly accused of quite frequently, youre also big on trolling
Bad^Hat
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 19,983
- Reaction score
- 530
He kind of made that choice when he ****ing asked you.