Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
"MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
"The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.
OK, I understand now.
Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.And he believes the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.Let's move on.
You can, and you are doing this.
What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.
I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about. OK. So there's your challenge. You want to hide behind the Constitution ? You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?
Better go talk to SCOTUS.
Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.
Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.
Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?
Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?
Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?
As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.
And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.
1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.
2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 FUCKING TIMES in this thread. Read it!!
6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
Your homophobia has been duly noted. Just try not to think of hard cocks too much, that's a tad gay.
1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.
2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 FUCKING TIMES in this thread. Read it!!
6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.
1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
The US has a kind of democracy. There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.
Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.
Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.
2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?
3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.
Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"
You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.
4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.
Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.
Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?
5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.
6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?
So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.
7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.
8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.
1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.
2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 FUCKING TIMES in this thread. Read it!!
6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.
1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
The US has a kind of democracy. There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.
Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.
Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.
2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?
3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.
Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"
You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.
4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.
Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.
Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?
5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.
6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?
So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.
7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.
8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.
He's a retard. You're better off just ignoring him.
He just can't handle it. Oh well. 
The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.
Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.
Step along, protectionist.
Yours is the response of a cornered conspiracy nut.
"The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
"MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
"The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.
EARTH TO D4E: Nobody cares what these paid-off, wimped-out phony excuses for professionalism have to say, and nobody has cared about their pathetic, openly admitted capitulations to the queer activist movement, for decades now. They are a joke every one of them. To even mention these moldy, fools in this forum is a laughingstock.
"The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
"MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
"The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.
I wonder how many "gays" (closeted perhaps?) are sitting members of the above boards?!
Regardless, homosexuality is certainly a disorder of some sort. Spiritual? Sexual? Mental? Sheer ignorance? Lack of proper training/upbringing? All the above? Some of the above? Who can say for sure but the bottom line is that it's totally unnatural for men to "sleep" with men. Gay activism is a social cancer that's attempting to convince the overall social organism to believe it "belongs" but I can't help but see a malignant lump.
THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
OK, I understand now.
Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.And he believes the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.Let's move on.
I never said "the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution" YOU said that.
Yes, let's move on, ........on the basis of knowing that one of your tactics to is try to put words in people's mouths. Nice try.
Yours is the response of........well, actually, you have no response, do you ?
No it hasn't. Because there is NO SUCH THING as "homophobia".. This is a FALSE word devised by the queer community to twist public thought around from normal common sense, to the deranged fallacy of their perverted lifestyle/movement.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something. But fear of homosexuality is not irrational.
In America, queers have a well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America. Use of the word "phobia" is a despicable shot against those, like myself, who suffer from a true phobia (Agoraphobia), and really makes a laughingstock out of those who use this phony, idiotic word > "homophobia"
I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about. OK. So there's your challenge. You want to hide behind the Constitution ? You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?
Better go talk to SCOTUS.
If you have an answer, let's hear it.
When I was young I was a socialist revolutionary. I supported a litany of ultra-left wing causes that i now oppose. I find many of my age group (60s & 70s) to be the same.
You may find that as the haters of perversion die out, they will be replaced by former queer backers who then age/evolve into perversion haters, just as they evolve from supporters of such things as affirmative action and immigration, into haters of those things too.
RE-READ MY POST VERY SLOWLY!!!===THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
