Same sex attraction is a mental disorder

[Mikeoxenormous]

Oh I am sorry, I used math on my last question and I know how hard it is for you to find the answer. No I am not a pedophile because my wife was 24 when we got married. Does that help that peabrain of yours?

 

[Disir]

And yet, you've not provided evidence that the APA is wrong here.

There's the rub about psychology and psychiatry. Its almost all subjective opinion. If you go to a psychologist and start telling him your problems he will start stroking his beard, and depending on his favorite strain of psychology (perhaps he is a Freudian or something else) he will offer an opinion that is no better than mine.

SO: What sort of physical evidence is available to us? Well, the obvious answer is that men have penises and women have vaginas, not to put too fine a point on it.

What else do we have: We know that in nature, the most base instincts are survival and procreation. They are fundamental to every living thing.

Therefore: It is only simple logic that if you are not attracted to that which nature demands that you be attracted to for the propagation of the species, then whatever you are attracted to (same sex) is by definition unnatural. It is abnormal to be averse to copulating with the opposite sex, since that is a base instinct in all species.

The APA totally discounted all that, and used a set of observations that were totally stupid and subjective to reach their conclusion.

Ok. So, your position now is that it is all opinion rather than science.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. There are many heterosexual couples that don't feel a need to procreate. Shooot, on that note, there are many heterosexual couples we wish would not procreate.

You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You do not have the right to impose that on other people. Do not read more into that than what it is. This does not mean that I will argue the same when it comes to hormone treatment under 18 or allowing a child to perform in drag. That is different.

 

[Penelope]

Yeah? Jesus have something to say about it, did he?

Yes he did. But Jesus is not the topic of this thread.

Um no he didn't have a thing to say about homosexuality, but he did talk about eunuchs.

Talking about eunuchs, a black man a Muslim and a queer walk into a bar. The bartender says "What will it be Barrack Obama"?

I am not interested in your jokes.

If you care to comment on this perhaps:

In audio from the tape, Mr Trump can be heard asking the 10-year-old if she is going up an escalator inside Trump Tower in New York, to which she responds: “Yeah”.

He then turns to the camera and says: “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?”

Donald Trump saw a 10-year-old and said 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years'
----------------------------------------------
In his mind he was looking at the 10 year old as a sexual object. Care to comment??

When I was 20 my wife was only 15 at the time. I didnt meet her till she was 20 and I married her when I was 29. Does that make me a pedophile?

When you look at a 10 year old female and make comments like I'm going to be dating her in 10 year yes his is looking her as a sexual object.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

And yet, you've not provided evidence that the APA is wrong here.

There's the rub about psychology and psychiatry. Its almost all subjective opinion. If you go to a psychologist and start telling him your problems he will start stroking his beard, and depending on his favorite strain of psychology (perhaps he is a Freudian or something else) he will offer an opinion that is no better than mine.

SO: What sort of physical evidence is available to us? Well, the obvious answer is that men have penises and women have vaginas, not to put too fine a point on it.

What else do we have: We know that in nature, the most base instincts are survival and procreation. They are fundamental to every living thing.

Therefore: It is only simple logic that if you are not attracted to that which nature demands that you be attracted to for the propagation of the species, then whatever you are attracted to (same sex) is by definition unnatural. It is abnormal to be averse to copulating with the opposite sex, since that is a base instinct in all species.

The APA totally discounted all that, and used a set of observations that were totally stupid and subjective to reach their conclusion.

Ok. So, your position now is that it is all opinion rather than science.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. There are many heterosexual couples that don't feel a need to procreate. Shooot, on that note, there are many heterosexual couples we wish would not procreate.

You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You do not have the right to impose that on other people. Do not read more into that than what it is. This does not mean that I will argue the same when it comes to hormone treatment under 18 or allowing a child to perform in drag. That is different.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior.

So homosexuals are "animals" and not civilized human beings? I love it when queers are like dogs, this is the argument of the left. Animals do it, so faggots can too.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yes he did. But Jesus is not the topic of this thread.

Um no he didn't have a thing to say about homosexuality, but he did talk about eunuchs.

Talking about eunuchs, a black man a Muslim and a queer walk into a bar. The bartender says "What will it be Barrack Obama"?

I am not interested in your jokes.

If you care to comment on this perhaps:

In audio from the tape, Mr Trump can be heard asking the 10-year-old if she is going up an escalator inside Trump Tower in New York, to which she responds: “Yeah”.

He then turns to the camera and says: “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?”

Donald Trump saw a 10-year-old and said 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years'
----------------------------------------------
In his mind he was looking at the 10 year old as a sexual object. Care to comment??

When I was 20 my wife was only 15 at the time. I didnt meet her till she was 20 and I married her when I was 29. Does that make me a pedophile?

When you look at a 10 year old female and make comments like I'm going to be dating her in 10 year yes his is looking her as a sexual object.

Boy, you are such a petulant old hag. Just because no one will look at you and say "Damn, I would love to be with her in 10 years" , your jealousy knows no bounds. Bet you wish you had a billionaire desiring your ugly puss.

 

[Disir]

And yet, you've not provided evidence that the APA is wrong here.

There's the rub about psychology and psychiatry. Its almost all subjective opinion. If you go to a psychologist and start telling him your problems he will start stroking his beard, and depending on his favorite strain of psychology (perhaps he is a Freudian or something else) he will offer an opinion that is no better than mine.

SO: What sort of physical evidence is available to us? Well, the obvious answer is that men have penises and women have vaginas, not to put too fine a point on it.

What else do we have: We know that in nature, the most base instincts are survival and procreation. They are fundamental to every living thing.

Therefore: It is only simple logic that if you are not attracted to that which nature demands that you be attracted to for the propagation of the species, then whatever you are attracted to (same sex) is by definition unnatural. It is abnormal to be averse to copulating with the opposite sex, since that is a base instinct in all species.

The APA totally discounted all that, and used a set of observations that were totally stupid and subjective to reach their conclusion.

Ok. So, your position now is that it is all opinion rather than science.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. There are many heterosexual couples that don't feel a need to procreate. Shooot, on that note, there are many heterosexual couples we wish would not procreate.

You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You do not have the right to impose that on other people. Do not read more into that than what it is. This does not mean that I will argue the same when it comes to hormone treatment under 18 or allowing a child to perform in drag. That is different.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior.

So homosexuals are "animals" and not civilized human beings? I love it when queers are like dogs, this is the argument of the left. Animals do it, so faggots can too.

You don't have an argument, hon. Again. This is you trying to be a jack ass. Again.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Um no he didn't have a thing to say about homosexuality, but he did talk about eunuchs.

Talking about eunuchs, a black man a Muslim and a queer walk into a bar. The bartender says "What will it be Barrack Obama"?

I am not interested in your jokes.

If you care to comment on this perhaps:

In audio from the tape, Mr Trump can be heard asking the 10-year-old if she is going up an escalator inside Trump Tower in New York, to which she responds: “Yeah”.

He then turns to the camera and says: “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?”

Donald Trump saw a 10-year-old and said 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years'
----------------------------------------------
In his mind he was looking at the 10 year old as a sexual object. Care to comment??

When I was 20 my wife was only 15 at the time. I didnt meet her till she was 20 and I married her when I was 29. Does that make me a pedophile?

When you look at a 10 year old female and make comments like I'm going to be dating her in 10 year yes his is looking her as a sexual object.

Boy, you are such a petulant old hag. Just because no one will look at you and say "Damn, I would love to be with her in 10 years" , your jealousy knows no bounds. Bet you wish you had a billionaire desiring your ugly puss.

Oh as a reminder of what Hollywood has been doing forever since the 1960's, do you support the liberal Hollywood agenda?

Pretty Baby is a 1978 American historical drama film directed by Louis Malle, and starring Brooke Shields, Keith Carradine, and Susan Sarandon. The screenplay was written by Polly Platt. The plot focuses on a 12-year-old prostitute in the red-light district of New Orleans at the turn of the 20th century.

Brooke was a minor who showed all of her body in the movie. So as long as they are Democrat, pedophilia is okay, but if someone isnt then talking about dating a 20 year old is bad?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

And yet, you've not provided evidence that the APA is wrong here.

There's the rub about psychology and psychiatry. Its almost all subjective opinion. If you go to a psychologist and start telling him your problems he will start stroking his beard, and depending on his favorite strain of psychology (perhaps he is a Freudian or something else) he will offer an opinion that is no better than mine.

SO: What sort of physical evidence is available to us? Well, the obvious answer is that men have penises and women have vaginas, not to put too fine a point on it.

What else do we have: We know that in nature, the most base instincts are survival and procreation. They are fundamental to every living thing.

Therefore: It is only simple logic that if you are not attracted to that which nature demands that you be attracted to for the propagation of the species, then whatever you are attracted to (same sex) is by definition unnatural. It is abnormal to be averse to copulating with the opposite sex, since that is a base instinct in all species.

The APA totally discounted all that, and used a set of observations that were totally stupid and subjective to reach their conclusion.

Ok. So, your position now is that it is all opinion rather than science.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. There are many heterosexual couples that don't feel a need to procreate. Shooot, on that note, there are many heterosexual couples we wish would not procreate.

You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You do not have the right to impose that on other people. Do not read more into that than what it is. This does not mean that I will argue the same when it comes to hormone treatment under 18 or allowing a child to perform in drag. That is different.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior.

So homosexuals are "animals" and not civilized human beings? I love it when queers are like dogs, this is the argument of the left. Animals do it, so faggots can too.

You don't have an argument, hon. Again. This is you trying to be a jack ass. Again.

Yawn..

 

[Disir]

And yet, you've not provided evidence that the APA is wrong here. Science changes when new information is available. You have an opinion. Further, you keep attempting to conflate pedophilia and homosexuality.

The bottom line here is that if you are against having sex with someone of the same sex..........don't have sex with someone of the same sex. Really simple.

I've heard it said you have a mental illness when the illness impedes your life or interferes with your goals and relationships. I would not say people who are gay have their life "impeded" necessarily or cannot pursue goals and relationships, so I don't know if under that definition it qualifies as a mental illness.

Whether something is right or wrong--or qualifies you as "mentally ill"--are different things. Someone can look at something in a store, think "Yeah I know it's wrong but I'm gonna take that", and in no way be mentally ill. Immoral, moral, or "mixed feelings" is not the same as mental illness.

It's not a mental illness. You have every right to believe that this is a sin. Where that line is crossed (and I am not saying you are), is taking that belief and forcing it on others. It doesn't impact straight couples in any way, shape or form.

What I would encourage Christians to think about is this: if we consider homosexuality a mental illness, and yet it does not impede functioning or the realization of goals or relationships--then someday, the "powers that be" could consider "homophobia" a mental illness. Or Christianity, for that matter. The shoe can easily go right on that other foot.

Sure.

 

[Disir]

And yet, you've not provided evidence that the APA is wrong here.

There's the rub about psychology and psychiatry. Its almost all subjective opinion. If you go to a psychologist and start telling him your problems he will start stroking his beard, and depending on his favorite strain of psychology (perhaps he is a Freudian or something else) he will offer an opinion that is no better than mine.

SO: What sort of physical evidence is available to us? Well, the obvious answer is that men have penises and women have vaginas, not to put too fine a point on it.

What else do we have: We know that in nature, the most base instincts are survival and procreation. They are fundamental to every living thing.

Therefore: It is only simple logic that if you are not attracted to that which nature demands that you be attracted to for the propagation of the species, then whatever you are attracted to (same sex) is by definition unnatural. It is abnormal to be averse to copulating with the opposite sex, since that is a base instinct in all species.

The APA totally discounted all that, and used a set of observations that were totally stupid and subjective to reach their conclusion.

Ok. So, your position now is that it is all opinion rather than science.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. There are many heterosexual couples that don't feel a need to procreate. Shooot, on that note, there are many heterosexual couples we wish would not procreate.

You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You do not have the right to impose that on other people. Do not read more into that than what it is. This does not mean that I will argue the same when it comes to hormone treatment under 18 or allowing a child to perform in drag. That is different.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior.

So homosexuals are "animals" and not civilized human beings? I love it when queers are like dogs, this is the argument of the left. Animals do it, so faggots can too.

You don't have an argument, hon. Again. This is you trying to be a jack ass. Again.

Yawn..

You have not been able to put together a legitimate argument in several years. You are simply attention seeking.

Just like that, you don't exist.

 

[Mindful]

I will say this for sure: homosexuality is a sin,

Yeah? Jesus have something to say about it, did he?

Yes he did. But Jesus is not the topic of this thread.

Um no he didn't have a thing to say about homosexuality, but he did talk about eunuchs.

When are you going to get on to Jooz?

 

[Mindful]

Whatever one's sexual orientation, the fact remains:

 

[Penelope]

I will say this for sure: homosexuality is a sin,

Yeah? Jesus have something to say about it, did he?

Yes he did. But Jesus is not the topic of this thread.

Um no he didn't have a thing to say about homosexuality, but he did talk about eunuchs.

When are you going to get on to Jooz?

The op said nothing about the Jews, but Tel Aviv is the place to go if gay.

Why This Middle-Eastern Country Is One of the Most LGBT-Friendly Cities in the World

Tel Aviv is among the most popular holiday destinations for LGBTQ travellers, with the city home to a plethora of LGBTQ bars, gyms, beaches and hotels, as well the largest Pride parade in the Middle East and Asia.

and we know its not any of the gulf states or Jordan.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Same sex attraction is a mental disorder, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Author: Me!

You didn't write that. You're not smart enough. You plagiarize it by cherry picking information and not crediting the source. There is another whole side to the story that supports the position that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was based on scientific inquiry.

Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized homosexuality and those that viewed it as normal. In an effort to explain how that decision came about, this paper reviews some historical scientific theories and arguments that first led to the placement of homosexuality in DSM-I and DSM-II as well as alternative theories that eventually led to its removal from DSM III and subsequent editions of the manual. The paper concludes with a discussion of the sociocultural aftermath of that 1973 decision.

8. Conclusions
APA’s 1973 diagnostic revision was the beginning of the end of organized medicine’s official participation in the social stigmatization of homosexuality. Similar shifts gradually took place in the international mental health community as well. In 1990, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality per se from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) [64]. As a consequence, debates about homosexuality gradually shifted away from medicine and psychiatry and into the moral and political realms as religious, governmental, military, media, and educational institutions were deprived of medical or scientific rationalization for discrimination.

As a result, cultural attitudes about homosexuality changed in the US and other countries as those who accepted scientific authority on such matters gradually came to accept the normalizing view. For if homosexuality was no longer considered an illness, and if one did not literally accept biblical prohibitions against it, and if gay people are able and prepared to function as productive citizens, then what is wrong with being gay? Additionally, if there is nothing wrong with being gay, what moral and legal principles should the larger society endorse in helping gay people openly live their lives?

 

[Moonglow]

Same sex attraction is a mental disorder, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Author: Me!

They also used to think that an epileptic seizure was caused by demonic possession...How wrong they were..

 

[bodecea]

Let's not get started on how evil (sinister) left-handedness is.........

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

There's the rub about psychology and psychiatry. Its almost all subjective opinion. If you go to a psychologist and start telling him your problems he will start stroking his beard, and depending on his favorite strain of psychology (perhaps he is a Freudian or something else) he will offer an opinion that is no better than mine.

SO: What sort of physical evidence is available to us? Well, the obvious answer is that men have penises and women have vaginas, not to put too fine a point on it.

What else do we have: We know that in nature, the most base instincts are survival and procreation. They are fundamental to every living thing.

Therefore: It is only simple logic that if you are not attracted to that which nature demands that you be attracted to for the propagation of the species, then whatever you are attracted to (same sex) is by definition unnatural. It is abnormal to be averse to copulating with the opposite sex, since that is a base instinct in all species.

The APA totally discounted all that, and used a set of observations that were totally stupid and subjective to reach their conclusion.

Ok. So, your position now is that it is all opinion rather than science.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. There are many heterosexual couples that don't feel a need to procreate. Shooot, on that note, there are many heterosexual couples we wish would not procreate.

You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You do not have the right to impose that on other people. Do not read more into that than what it is. This does not mean that I will argue the same when it comes to hormone treatment under 18 or allowing a child to perform in drag. That is different.

If you are looking for physical evidence that is available, the rest of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior.

So homosexuals are "animals" and not civilized human beings? I love it when queers are like dogs, this is the argument of the left. Animals do it, so faggots can too.

You don't have an argument, hon. Again. This is you trying to be a jack ass. Again.

Yawn..

You have not been able to put together a legitimate argument in several years. You are simply attention seeking.

Just like that, you don't exist.

Yawn. You bore me.

 

[mdk]

This forum is obsessed with fags.

 

[Meister]

Even after cleaning up the thread and leaving a message to stay on topic the thread went over the cliff.
Thread closed