What does it mean to be gay or lesbian?

#177
#177
82_VOL_83 said:
Is it a mental illness that is chosen?
Click to expand...
Not recognizing or treating the mental illness is the issue. More then 2x the lgbtq community suffer from mental illness, suicides, and addiction. All linked to mental illness. So it would seem to reason that menta illness causes one to make questionable choices even those that will inflict harm upon themselves or others. A MI can be treated and maintained....another theory I'm researching is how many that identity with the lgbtq community experienced abuse as a child, and whether a homosexual couple will raise a homosexual child(nature vs nurture)..
 
#178
#178
whodeycin85 said:
Not recognizing or treating the mental illness is the issue. More then 2x the lgbtq community suffer from mental illness, suicides, and addiction. All linked to mental illness. So it would seem to reason that menta illness causes one to make questionable choices even those that will inflict harm upon themselves or others. A MI can be treated and maintained....another theory I'm researching is how many that identity with the lgbtq community experienced abuse as a child, and whether a homosexual couple will raise a homosexual child(nature vs nurture)..
Click to expand...
So its not a choice then. Those that are mentally ill generally don't recognize that they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and allvol123
#180
#180
Rasputin_Vol said:
McDad already hit on it earlier.



Whenever these discussions about children being classified or identifying as "gay" or "lesbian", the implication is that these children are sexually active or engaging in gay/lesbian activity.
Click to expand...
That was his answer.
You don’t want to tell me the thought process that made you want to discuss this?
That’s cool. it wasn’t a gotcha. I was just curious.
moving on
 
#181
#181
Septic said:
View attachment 563677
Click to expand...
Ras is a very smart guy with a different perspective.
I see you the same way. You tend to be closer to the smartass end of the spectrum with me…..but I’ve asked you the same type questions as I just asked him, for the same reason.

I often like trying to learn from or ponder on a different perspective
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and BernardKingGOAT
#183
#183
82_VOL_83 said:
So its not a choice then. Those that are mentally ill generally don't recognize that they are.
Click to expand...
But it is because they choose that lifestyle...it the same question as is it the gun shooting people or the person who has a mental illness...
 
#184
#184
Orangeslice13 said:
Ras is a very smart guy with a different perspective.
I see you the same way. You tend to be closer to the smartass end of the spectrum with me…..but I’ve asked you the same type questions as I just asked him, for the same reason.

I often like trying to learn from or ponder on a different perspective
Click to expand...

I used to think that about him as well, then I saw his true colors in the Ukraine thread. It's not that he's anti-American, I can see beyond that. He's willfully ignorant in the face of irrefutable facts, I don't consider that to be simply a 'different perspective.'

We'll have to agree to disagree.
 
#186
#186
allvol123 said:
I am a few beers in at this point, but I’ll give you a quick response.

I am for knowledge. I don’t believe there is an open minded approach from a scientific/medical standpoint to most of this, at this point.

I am not controlling for anything because I am not doing studies. I can recall only finding one study with relation to lifespan and homosexuality and the hope was to bring attention to lack of proper medical care for this community. I think because there is an agenda among many that this research is not pursued because they don’t want to see the results. Control for whatever, I am all for that. But we are playing Russian roulette with millions of lives if we’re just going to go with “yea there is a lot of suicide but we’re sure that is just because they are ostracized “. If that is the wrong reason and no one is pursuing other reasons, millions of lives will have been ruined.
Click to expand...
I thought you were coming at this from the other side, I thought you were implying their lives were shorter because of the "wrong way" they were living. and thats why we needed to study them.

now it seems like you are saying that we need to study their lives to see if they are shorter? to me that says you expect to see a difference; but I am unclear on what you think we will learn from this study, regardless of the controls in the study.
 
#187
#187
LouderVol said:
I thought you were coming at this from the other side, I thought you were implying their lives were shorter because of the "wrong way" they were living. and thats why we needed to study them.

now it seems like you are saying that we need to study their lives to see if they are shorter? to me that says you expect to see a difference; but I am unclear on what you think we will learn from this study, regardless of the controls in the study.
Click to expand...

How about we just learn? Is that not important? The point is the studies aren’t being done. Because people don’t want to see the results.

My belief is homosexual men certainly have shorter lifespans. I think most would believe that. There are even some studies that show it, but I don’t find a ton of info on this.

Currently we are saying, yea we know suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse is higher among these people BUT WE ARE SURE it ks because they are ostracized. So we will just fix that part and watch how things improve once we fix that. That is quite the foolish approach. To go 100% in on one hypothesis to fixing a problem.
 
#188
#188
allvol123 said:
How about we just learn? Is that not important? The point is the studies aren’t being done. Because people don’t want to see the results.

My belief is homosexual men certainly have shorter lifespans. I think most would believe that. There are even some studies that show it, but I don’t find a ton of info on this.

Currently we are saying, yea we know suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse is higher among these people BUT WE ARE SURE it ks because they are ostracized. So we will just fix that part and watch how things improve once we fix that. That is quite the foolish approach. To go 100% in on one hypothesis to fixing a problem.
Click to expand...
The studies I have found say members of the lgbtq community for 20 years sooner then heterosexuals. There are studies to the contrary and usually within the 1st page the bullying and ostracization argument come out clearly showing a agenda... It's interesting how little information there is out there regarding this...now as the mental illness, ya know is is a genetic mental illness for one brought on by environment (chemical in food,) that's a conspiracy worm hole I avoid. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#189
#189
Septic said:
I used to think that about him as well, then I saw his true colors in the Ukraine thread. It's not that he's anti-American, I can see beyond that. He's willfully ignorant in the face of irrefutable facts, I don't consider that to be simply a 'different perspective.'

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Have not really followed that thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#192
#192
allvol123 said:
How about we just learn? Is that not important? The point is the studies aren’t being done. Because people don’t want to see the results.

My belief is homosexual men certainly have shorter lifespans. I think most would believe that. There are even some studies that show it, but I don’t find a ton of info on this.

Currently we are saying, yea we know suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse is higher among these people BUT WE ARE SURE it ks because they are ostracized. So we will just fix that part and watch how things improve once we fix that. That is quite the foolish approach. To go 100% in on one hypothesis to fixing a problem.
Click to expand...
human's are complex creatures. We can have more than 1 thing wrong with us. Fixing/addressing the depression/MI from ostracization or removing said ostracization, will still be needed. Its not like even if you find a "cure" for being gay you are going to remove how people have treated them. and your argument relies on there being a MI responsible for their sexual preferences to justify additional study with no basis for it. Its very Democratic of you, we have to vote for the bill to see whats in it, or we have to indict Trump to figure out what he is guilty of.

Science starts with an objective base and doesn't ignore a common issue in search of a complex issue. Occam's razor exists for a reason. personally I would think you would need to start with the depression or "other" MI first, to clear the slate so you could actually study the base "condition" of being gay. and then you could actually see if being gay was a MI on its own, or a conditioned response due to other outside issues, or just behavior of healthy individuals based on some reason, nature or nurture. Because if your assumption is correct we are "turning" people gay somehow, or at the least we can fix them with meds, and we should focus our treatment on the "gay" issue only. seems reductive, and doesn't treat them as people beyond this one area you find abnormal/unhealthy.
 
#193
#193
whodeycin85 said:
The studies I have found say members of the lgbtq community for 20 years sooner then heterosexuals. There are studies to the contrary and usually within the 1st page the bullying and ostracization argument come out clearly showing a agenda... It's interesting how little information there is out there regarding this...now as the mental illness, ya know is is a genetic mental illness for one brought on by environment (chemical in food,) that's a conspiracy worm hole I avoid. Lol
Click to expand...
so you think its good science to compare one subset of a group without controlling for known adverse effects vs a healthy whole?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#195
#195
LouderVol said:
human's are complex creatures. We can have more than 1 thing wrong with us. Fixing/addressing the depression/MI from ostracization or removing said ostracization, will still be needed. Its not like even if you find a "cure" for being gay you are going to remove how people have treated them. and your argument relies on there being a MI responsible for their sexual preferences to justify additional study with no basis for it. Its very Democratic of you, we have to vote for the bill to see whats in it, or we have to indict Trump to figure out what he is guilty of.

Science starts with an objective base and doesn't ignore a common issue in search of a complex issue. Occam's razor exists for a reason. personally I would think you would need to start with the depression or "other" MI first, to clear the slate so you could actually study the base "condition" of being gay. and then you could actually see if being gay was a MI on its own, or a conditioned response due to other outside issues, or just behavior of healthy individuals based on some reason, nature or nurture. Because if your assumption is correct we are "turning" people gay somehow, or at the least we can fix them with meds, and we should focus our treatment on the "gay" issue only. seems reductive, and doesn't treat them as people beyond this one area you find abnormal/unhealthy.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing me with someone else at times. I’m not making any assumption that would state we are turning people gay.

My argument is we are essentially approaching this subject like we did Covid. “Here is the answer, the debate is over!”.

The approach from the majority appears to be, treat them with kindness and all these other issues will clear up. Seems quite foolish to push all your chips in on that one.
 
#196
#196
LouderVol said:
human's are complex creatures. We can have more than 1 thing wrong with us. Fixing/addressing the depression/MI from ostracization or removing said ostracization, will still be needed. Its not like even if you find a "cure" for being gay you are going to remove how people have treated them. and your argument relies on there being a MI responsible for their sexual preferences to justify additional study with no basis for it. Its very Democratic of you, we have to vote for the bill to see whats in it, or we have to indict Trump to figure out what he is guilty of.

Science starts with an objective base and doesn't ignore a common issue in search of a complex issue. Occam's razor exists for a reason. personally I would think you would need to start with the depression or "other" MI first, to clear the slate so you could actually study the base "condition" of being gay. and then you could actually see if being gay was a MI on its own, or a conditioned response due to other outside issues, or just behavior of healthy individuals based on some reason, nature or nurture. Because if your assumption is correct we are "turning" people gay somehow, or at the least we can fix them with meds, and we should focus our treatment on the "gay" issue only. seems reductive, and doesn't treat them as people beyond this one area you find abnormal/unhealthy.
Click to expand...

My Grandpa's brother was gay. He was a talented concert pianist. He lived with his parents and was unhappy. He up and moved to San Francisco at one point and a group of his brothers went and retrieved him, and brought him back to New Mexico because having a gay lifestyle was the most scandalous thing possible. He died in his 50's, sad, lonely, and depressed because it's a mental illness and it has nothing to do with external factors from society, whatsoever.
 
#197
#197
whodeycin85 said:
But it is because they choose that lifestyle...it the same question as is it the gun shooting people or the person who has a mental illness...
Click to expand...
If you are saying it's a mental illness, then they choose to have a mental illness? It can't be both. Either it's a choice or an illness, which is it? Have you ever known someone with undiagnosed bipolar disorder? They do not believe they have a problem but being bipolar is not a choice.
 
#198
#198
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm just curious because it seems like one side has one understanding of what it means and the other side has another understanding.

Can we clarify what these terms mean so that we can move the discussion forward and have an honest dialogue?
Click to expand...

for starters,

So long as you can understand and/or Google the meaning of "have/had relations with" (in context of "the men" and "daughters" in conjuctions with "the men"), then, well,

here are two sides (those inside the house, and those outside the house), where each side knows/understands exactly the meaning (to help us today undestand, from any sides) --

Genesis 19:4Before they lay down, the men of the city—the men of Sodom—surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may [c]have relations with them.” 6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,

7and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8Now look, I have two daughters who have not [d]had relations with any man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them [e]whatever you like; only do not do anything to these men, because they have come under the [f]shelter of my roof.”

^^ focus: "relations with"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top