Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43

Thread: Hearing ‘That’s So Gay’ Causes Negative Health Effects

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893

    Hearing ‘That’s So Gay’ Causes Negative Health Effects


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    In simple terminology this study and its findings and even its justification for being carried out would be utter nonsense. The concept that non-supportive words can lead to real world negative health affects could easily be considered ridiculous and a sign of a lack of societal backbone.

    The supposed study presented asked random participants if they believed they suffered from negative health effects after hearing a single sentence. The legitimacy of this study is lacking and its validity is questionable at best.

    If the homosexual community is seeking special protection so they do not have to hear negative opinions regarding their lifestyle choices then it is highly questionable just how valid of a lifestyle choice it is. Perhaps one should ask what the negative side effects are if the homosexual community is repeatedly told that their activities are disproportionately tied to the unchecked spread of HIV and AIDS compared to the heterosexual community.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    A short look around this website shows just how much homosexuals have embraced victimhood.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by X
    In simple terminology this study and its findings and even its justification for being carried out would be utter nonsense. The concept that non-supportive words can lead to real world negative health affects could easily be considered ridiculous and a sign of a lack of societal backbone.
    However the concept of words having negative affects is nonsense, you say, so there should be no need to develop a "societal backbone" to stand up against nothing. That is, unless words really do have an affect. I'm just using your logic. You can't claim the words don't have an affect, then slyly imply a criticism of those who suffer a negative affect. Could having a backbone mean you stand up for yourself and challenge things in society when these are wrong, uncivil or unjust; even if not personally affected? Could choosing not to do so and remaining silent be a sign of lacking a spine?

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    The supposed study presented asked random participants if they believed they suffered from negative health effects after hearing a single sentence. The legitimacy of this study is lacking and its validity is questionable at best.
    I think it said those who heard the negative phrase most often had the negative health effects caused by stress. It didn't ask the participants what they believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    If the homosexual community is seeking special protection so they do not have to hear negative opinions regarding their lifestyle choices then it is highly questionable just how valid of a lifestyle choice it is.
    It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a chosen system of beliefs. It's not consciously chosen. Being gay(or straight) is a very integral part of one's humanity. No one's else's identity should be used either, the way the phrase "that's so gay" is: as a saying for anything negative or hated, over which the person with the identity has no control. Is this not just being civil? It's like saying, "my useless computer was so Jew today". It takes one's frustration or hatred of a thing or situation out on a whole group, almost always a minority, who had nothing to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    Perhaps one should ask what the negative side effects are if the homosexual community is repeatedly told that their activities are disproportionately tied to the unchecked spread of HIV and AIDS compared to the heterosexual community.
    Disease statistics are a non-sequitor, just like the "lifestyle" comment. Why mention that? Would it be to show compassion? If so, then that's acceptable, as it is in regards to any group who have suffered from diseases. We're all human. I also see nothing wrong with prevention, safer sex education and promotion, in an open, respectful and non-judgmental way. There are many different types of activities, practiced a lot of varying ways, among many different gay people who have many different lifestyles. As for those statistics, it depends on where you live. At the heart of the epidemic in Africa, HIV/AIDS affects very few gays. Within the U.S. too, it depends where you live, whether or not more gays or more straights have this particular disease.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderifworthit View Post
    However the concept of words having negative affects is nonsense, you say, so there should be no need to develop a "societal backbone" to stand up against nothing. That is, unless words really do have an affect. I'm just using your logic. You can't claim the words don't have an affect, then slyly imply a criticism of those who suffer a negative affect. Could having a backbone mean you stand up for yourself and challenge things in society when these are wrong, uncivil or unjust; even if not personally affected? Could choosing not to do so and remaining silent be a sign of lacking a spine?



    I think it said those who heard the negative phrase most often had the negative health effects caused by stress. It didn't ask the participants what they believed.



    It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a chosen system of beliefs. It's not consciously chosen. Being gay(or straight) is a very integral part of one's humanity. No one's else's identity should be used either, the way the phrase "that's so gay" is: as a saying for anything negative or hated, over which the person with the identity has no control. Is this not just being civil? It's like saying, "my useless computer was so Jew today". It takes one's frustration or hatred of a thing or situation out on a whole group, almost always a minority, who had nothing to do with it.



    Disease statistics are a non-sequitor, just like the "lifestyle" comment. Why mention that? Would it be to show compassion? If so, then that's acceptable, as it is in regards to any group who have suffered from diseases. We're all human. I also see nothing wrong with prevention, safer sex education and promotion, in an open, respectful and non-judgmental way. There are many different types of activities, practiced a lot of varying ways, among many different gay people who have many different lifestyles. As for those statistics, it depends on where you live. At the heart of the epidemic in Africa, HIV/AIDS affects very few gays. Within the U.S. too, it depends where you live, whether or not more gays or more straights have this particular disease.
    HIV in Africa has spread because of superstition and ignorance. What are the homosexuals excuse for the high rate of HIV among gays?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    HIV in Africa has spread because of superstition and ignorance. What are the homosexuals excuse for the high rate of HIV among gays?
    The same deal.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderifworthit View Post
    The same deal.
    You believe homosexuals are superstitious and ignorant?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderifworthit View Post
    However the concept of words having negative affects is nonsense, you say, so there should be no need to develop a "societal backbone" to stand up against nothing. That is, unless words really do have an affect. I'm just using your logic. You can't claim the words don't have an affect, then slyly imply a criticism of those who suffer a negative affect.
    Quite incorrect. Rather it is a criticism of those who claim they suffer a negative effect from words they have heard even if the words and the sentiment behind them were not directed at them in the first place.

    Could having a backbone mean you stand up for yourself and challenge things in society when these are wrong, uncivil or unjust; even if not personally affected? Could choosing not to do so and remaining silent be a sign of lacking a spine?
    The homosexual community has been quite vocal and outspoken about many things they believe negatively affect them, the most recent being the owner of Chick-Fil-A restaurants believing that the definition of marriage should apply to unions of one man and one woman exclusively. It was not a claim that homosexuals would not be served and turned away from the restaurants but rather only a personal opinion regarding marriage. In response to this the homosexual community protested Chick-Fil-A and wished for cities to deny them business licenses for not sharing the views of others.

    To put in simple terms the homosexual community would seem to believe they are victimized at every turn in every walk of life and will attack anything and everything they determine to be a threat even if no such threat exists. Their outspoken nature and rallying for pride demonstrations would suggest they possess a negative image of themselves and consider themselves inferior when compared and contrasted to others.

    It isn't so much a matter of having a backbone but rather having a chip on one's shoulder while at the same time claiming that if anyone attempts to knock it off they'll commit suicide in response.

    I think it said those who heard the negative phrase most often had the negative health effects caused by stress. It didn't ask the participants what they believed.
    The study asked participants about their health after they heard someone say the phrase "that's so gay" and report the stress born from hearing the phrase negatively impacts their health. The legitimacy of this concept aside the study is basically asking participants to engage in self-psychoanalysis and make informed decisions based on what little they know without adequate training and schooling to determine the source of stress related illnesses. Self-diagnosing is not considered a beneficial behavior to engage in.

    The average individual is simply not capable of determining with any degree of accuracy what the origin of their stress and negative health is. It is for that reason the psychiatric industry is such a big business. Only a trained expert would be able to conclusively show that having heard "that's so gay" is what has caused any individual's illness. Unless intense psychotherapy has been available to every participant the results of the study are without merit.

    It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a chosen system of beliefs. It's not consciously chosen. Being gay(or straight) is a very integral part of one's humanity. No one's else's identity should be used either, the way the phrase "that's so gay" is: as a saying for anything negative or hated, over which the person with the identity has no control. Is this not just being civil? It's like saying, "my useless computer was so Jew today". It takes one's frustration or hatred of a thing or situation out on a whole group, almost always a minority, who had nothing to do with it.
    There is currently no scientifically proven evidence to support the notion that homosexualism is a legitimate measure of differentiation between two or more individuals. Nor is there evidence to suggest that homosexualism is anymore unique or special than xenophilia.

    It has also not been proven that homosexualism is a legitimate difference at all. Some have presented the argument that sexuality is fluid in nature and not a hard and fast constant that cannot be changed. If there is credibility to this argument the call of homosexual equality is without a leg to stand on as it would truly be just a phase of ever changing life.

    Disease statistics are a non-sequitor, just like the "lifestyle" comment. Why mention that? Would it be to show compassion? If so, then that's acceptable, as it is in regards to any group who have suffered from diseases. We're all human. I also see nothing wrong with prevention, safer sex education and promotion, in an open, respectful and non-judgmental way. There are many different types of activities, practiced a lot of varying ways, among many different gay people who have many different lifestyles. As for those statistics, it depends on where you live. At the heart of the epidemic in Africa, HIV/AIDS affects very few gays. Within the U.S. too, it depends where you live, whether or not more gays or more straights have this particular disease.
    The argument made is the phrase "that's so gay" can cause negative health effects in those that hear it. The concept is that words themselves have the potential to inflict physical harm in the same manner as a virus that has been transmitted from one to another. This concept is utter nonsense. To illustrate this nonsense is was questioned what negative health effects could be have if a sentence of definite hostility and intolerance were uttered regularly. And since many believe homosexualism goes hand in hand with the spread of AIDS and other diseases it seemed a valid concept to make.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    There is currently no scientifically proven evidence to support the notion that homosexualism is a legitimate measure of differentiation between two or more individuals.
    You've said this several times, I'm still not sure what you mean. What is a 'legitimate' measure of difference?
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    You've said this several times, I'm still not sure what you mean. What is a 'legitimate' measure of difference?
    How is sexual preference recognized as a measurable standard for differential between two individuals? How is it a hard point of measure compared to other genetic standards such as eye color, hair color, right or left hand orientation, eye dominance, or any other genetic factor that a person has no control over?

    Ultimately the argument regarding homosexuality is based around what individuals claim they prefer in life. If it is truly a matter of simple preference how does homosexualism differ from preference for a certain sport or team? If there is no recognizable difference between the two standards will it eventually become necessary to extend civil rights act protection status to people on the basis of which sports team they believe is superior to others?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Quite incorrect. Rather it is a criticism of those who claim they suffer a negative effect from words they have heard even if the words and the sentiment behind them were not directed at them in the first place.
    You've got it all wrong. There isn't self-psychoanalysis or self-diagnosis going on in these types of studies that link negative health effects to stigma and bullying. That would be ridiculous if it were true, but it's not. Again, if the words have no power the way they are used, there is no need for a backbone for those individuals hearing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    The homosexual community has been quite vocal and outspoken about many things they believe negatively affect them, the most recent being the owner of Chick-Fil-A restaurants believing that the definition of marriage should apply to unions of one man and one woman exclusively. It was not a claim that homosexuals would not be served and turned away from the restaurants but rather only a personal opinion regarding marriage. In response to this the homosexual community protested Chick-Fil-A and wished for cities to deny them business licenses for not sharing the views of others.
    That's not the issue we were talking about. Although while we are, it wasn't just that the owner was vocal against same-sex marriage. You see what I did there: both sides can be called vocal. The restaurant also donates money to designated anti-gay hate groups(called so by the Southern Poverty Law Center) such as the Family Research Council which claims gays are more likely to molest kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    To put in simple terms the homosexual community would seem to believe they are victimized at every turn in every walk of life and will attack anything and everything they determine to be a threat even if no such threat exists. Their outspoken nature and rallying for pride demonstrations would suggest they possess a negative image of themselves and consider themselves inferior when compared and contrasted to others.

    It isn't so much a matter of having a backbone but rather having a chip on one's shoulder while at the same time claiming that if anyone attempts to knock it off they'll commit suicide in response.
    Why do you need to speak out against gays, gay rights or gay pride, if you are a heterosexual? This must suggest the heterosexual, including the heterosexual restaurant owner, is feeling personally threatened. They can't possibly have a positive and secure image of themselves. So what if someone challenges their negative opinion of gays or if gays gain the same rights? How will it affect or ruin their lives? They must see themselves as inferior.

    Gay people do suffer abuse that heterosexuals do not. Now of course if someone gets the message enough times by enough people that they are no good, the person may start to believe it and act out accordingly. They may suffer physical problems from stress and not look after themselves. If you are speaking out against gays you are imagining a threat where none exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    There is currently no scientifically proven evidence to support the notion that homosexualism is a legitimate measure of differentiation between two or more individuals. Nor is there evidence to suggest that homosexualism is anymore unique or special than xenophilia.

    It has also not been proven that homosexualism is a legitimate difference at all. Some have presented the argument that sexuality is fluid in nature and not a hard and fast constant that cannot be changed. If there is credibility to this argument the call of homosexual equality is without a leg to stand on as it would truly be just a phase of ever changing life.
    This would make everyone essentially, bi-sexual by nature, no? Heterosexual exclusivity would also be seen as a "phase" in life if sexuality is fluid. However there are many people who are completely gay or straight and their sexuality isn't at all fuid.

    Quote Originally Posted by X
    The argument made is the phrase "that's so gay" can cause negative health effects in those that hear it. The concept is that words themselves have the potential to inflict physical harm in the same manner as a virus that has been transmitted from one to another. This concept is utter nonsense. To illustrate this nonsense is was questioned what negative health effects could be have if a sentence of definite hostility and intolerance were uttered regularly. And since many believe homosexualism goes hand in hand with the spread of AIDS and other diseases it seemed a valid concept to make.
    In the case of HIV/AIDS you see heterosexuals with the same cause and effect. You don't see that with social stigma because heterosexuals don't suffer it, however gays do.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    How is sexual preference recognized as a measurable standard for differential between two individuals? How is it a hard point of measure compared to other genetic standards such as eye color, hair color, right or left hand orientation, eye dominance, or any other genetic factor that a person has no control over?

    Ultimately the argument regarding homosexuality is based around what individuals claim they prefer in life. If it is truly a matter of simple preference how does homosexualism differ from preference for a certain sport or team? If there is no recognizable difference between the two standards will it eventually become necessary to extend civil rights act protection status to people on the basis of which sports team they believe is superior to others?
    You could say the same thing about heterosexualism/preference. However sexual ORIENTATION, gay or straight, involves much deeper processes in the individual than deciding which sports team to root for.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    How is sexual preference recognized as a measurable standard for differential between two individuals? How is it a hard point of measure compared to other genetic standards such as eye color, hair color, right or left hand orientation, eye dominance, or any other genetic factor that a person has no control over?
    Why did you answer my question with another question? (Pun)

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Ultimately the argument regarding homosexuality is based around what individuals claim they prefer in life. If it is truly a matter of simple preference how does homosexualism differ from preference for a certain sport or team? If there is no recognizable difference between the two standards will it eventually become necessary to extend civil rights act protection status to people on the basis of which sports team they believe is superior to others?
    Why is there a need to extend rights based on differences? I see no need to identify any differences between people with regard to identifying their rights.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    You believe homosexuals are superstitious and ignorant?
    Why yes of course. That's exactly what I was saying. This is because the negative generalization merely applies to gays, and not to your favored straight people!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderifworthit View Post
    You've got it all wrong. There isn't self-psychoanalysis or self-diagnosis going on in these types of studies that link negative health effects to stigma and bullying.
    It is highly questionable if uttering "that's so gay" can even amount to bullying under realistic standards of defining the practice and enforcing restrictions against it.

    Again the study is asking participants to identify the exact source of their negative health and determine if it is stress from hearing what they perceive as an unkind utterance rather than any one of other possible explanations. Matters such as environmental contamination, family medical history, diseases spread by insect bites or other factors are all be possible explanations for negative health conditions. Even if all other factors can be ruled out and the only conclusive cause is stress it cannot be accurately determined that hearing "that's so gay" is sufficient to produce enough emotional stress to negatively impact a person's health compared to the stress born from economic and scholastic hardships that plague so many in this country.

    Unless highly successful and economically well off individuals were included in the study as a control method to rule out the stress of everyday life the results are of questionable legitimacy. They seem far more motivated by politics rather than honest concern for the health of others.

    That would be ridiculous if it were true, but it's not. Again, if the words have no power the way they are used, there is no need for a backbone for those individuals hearing it.
    Perhaps what gives words power is the mindset of the one claiming to be the victim. If they believe they are continually discriminated against and have no resistance to the harshness of the real world then perhaps they are allowing themselves to be victimized by anything that is not supportive of their position.

    That's not the issue we were talking about. Although while we are, it wasn't just that the owner was vocal against same-sex marriage. You see what I did there: both sides can be called vocal. The restaurant also donates money to designated anti-gay hate groups(called so by the Southern Poverty Law Center) such as the Family Research Council which claims gays are more likely to molest kids.
    Considering the current fiasco with the catholic church having covered up countless examples of young boys being sexually molested by their male priests it cannot be said that the Family Research Council was entirely inaccurate with their claim.

    It is also intellectually dishonest for the Southern Poverty Law Center to arbitrarily label an organization as being a hate group simply because they do not support the homosexual movement.

    Why do you need to speak out against gays, gay rights or gay pride, if you are a heterosexual? This must suggest the heterosexual, including the heterosexual restaurant owner, is feeling personally threatened. They can't possibly have a positive and secure image of themselves. So what if someone challenges their negative opinion of gays or if gays gain the same rights? How will it affect or ruin their lives? They must see themselves as inferior.
    In the manner you have phrased this statement it appears you are suggesting the heterosexual community should be suffering the negative health effects rather than the homosexual community due to feeling inferior to a minority group of questionable validity

    Gay people do suffer abuse that heterosexuals do not.
    Rather incorrect. If one looks closely enough they will find examples of abuse and violence that are used against people regardless of sexual orientation. However it is only the homosexual community that would consider it an example of abuse to be faced with other people being allowed to have a negative opinion of them.

    There is simply no standard of law that would make it illegal to maintain negative and non-supportive opinions of others. Despite the civil rights act being law it is impossible to arrest and charge someone for being a racist and uttering disparaging remarks against minorities.

    Now of course if someone gets the message enough times by enough people that they are no good, the person may start to believe it and act out accordingly. They may suffer physical problems from stress and not look after themselves.
    The phrase "so what?" would seem appropriate here. Speech cannot be abridged under the standard that it may negatively affect someone's health due to them possessing low self esteem and a negative image of themselves.

    If you are speaking out against gays you are imagining a threat where none exists.
    Quite incorrect. Speaking out in opposition of some group does not mean those speaking out are imagining a threat. That logic is rather faulty and even dangerous.

    This would make everyone essentially, bi-sexual by nature, no? Heterosexual exclusivity would also be seen as a "phase" in life if sexuality is fluid. However there are many people who are completely gay or straight and their sexuality isn't at all fuid.
    Individuals choosing to remain gender exclusive is not sufficient evidence to prove that sexuality is not fluid in nature.

    In the case of HIV/AIDS you see heterosexuals with the same cause and effect. You don't see that with social stigma because heterosexuals don't suffer it, however gays do.
    No group is protected against perceived social stigma and to try such is an impossible standard. Homosexual status and AIDS infection have almost become synonymous with each other. The Center for Disease Control has even shown that this is the case. U.S. Gay Men's Astonishing HIV/STD Rates | The Bilerico Project

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderifworthit View Post
    You could say the same thing about heterosexualism/preference. However sexual ORIENTATION, gay or straight, involves much deeper processes in the individual than deciding which sports team to root for.
    Pray tell what are those processes to which you refer?
    Last edited by Xenamnes; 09-10-2012 at 01:51 PM.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •