Quote:
Originally Posted by dor  No I didn't say they could be argued out of it.... however I did say if they wanted to change they could be treated out of it in some cases. So does Dr. Spitzer who originally got it declassified as an abnormality.
Whether people, especially women, are 'born' homosexual is still debated ,and probably too politicized to be discussed openly. -certainly there are women who have changed their orientation over time. I don't know what you mean (nor do i care what you mean ) by 'against females'.
You can believe that person is operating out of hatred all you want. But making these arguments you're only making my point:
"the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice)"
labeling, name calling and not discussing.
it translates to 'since the people who making them are haters their argument is hateful. That's a tight little circular argument. ....as you have made clear, there is no point in even discussing this with you. |
Well, you DID say there are arguments to be made against homosexuality. If not the homosexuals, who would the arguments be made to? To society, that they should discourage or eliminate homosexuals? In little intellectual salons, where people judge what's right or wrong for everybody else? or what?
By the way, I wasn't making an argument at all, circular or otherwise, (but thanks for telling me I have a tight little anything.) I'm saying that a person trying to argue another out of being something there born with (like homosexual, or female), regardless of whether or not that characteristic can be changed, would be making what I'd consider a hateful argument. Because it's intolerant and interventionist -- that's what I would call hatred.