Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder ?

[protectionist]

Stop beating around the bush. What's your point (specifically) ???

Hmm, it seemed to be quite simple.

There's a US constitution, it protects the right of individuals from US federal and state interference.

It protects the right to privacy. How can people demand smaller government (ie keep out of people's lives) and then demand that they prevent gay people marrying? Or as was suggested, not be able to work in schools and other such jobs?

Since I am not a proponent of smaller govt, I won't comment on that. I'll just say that the people can demand that society be structured according to how they want it to be. Govt of the people, by the people, for the people. If/whenever they decide that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (damage to mental health), and queers teaching in schools (danger to kids), then they have the right to PROTECT themselves from that.

Thus, in (IMO) stupid societies (ex. New York, California), queer marriage is legal. In (IMO) smart societies (ex. Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is banned.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since I am not a proponent of smaller govt, I won't comment on that. I'll just say that the people can demand that society be structured according to how they want it to be. Govt of the people, by the people, for the people. If/whenever they decide that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (damage to mental health), and queers teaching in schools (danger to kids), then they have the right to PROTECT themselves from that.

Thus, in (IMO) stupid societies (ex. New York, California), queer marriage is legal. In (IMO) smart societies (ex. Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is banned.

And surely that "demand that society be structured" lark is THE US CONSTITUTION which most people seem to claim to support, and which gives individuals the right of protection from the US govt.

You're trying to claim mob rule, even after 223 years after the Bill or Rights was put into the constitution to stop MOB RULE over individuals.

And, to go to your argument, if they decide black people voting is dangerous, then they have "right to PROTECT themselves from that".

Right? hey, I have the right to protect myself from you? So I can ban you? You're dangerous, what with all that stuff talking about fluffy bunnies and all that, right? (Okay, I made that up about the bunnies, but whatever you get the point, I hope.).

I'd also say, your "right to PROTECT yourself" from anything you deem dangerous is not how the theory of rights actually works.

In all my time looking at politics, the one thing seems to be a constant. People do not have any single damn clue about what rights mean.

Get this. You can do whatever you like as long as it does not hurt others.

1) You can say what you like, as long as it does not hurt others. Ie, treason, libel or causing physical harm, and a few other things.

This is part of the 1st Amendment, right? The right is not absolute, and it protects you from the govt, however, it doesn't protect you to tread down on people.

So, you have a right to privacy, as long as you're not using it to tread down on people.

You have the right to own weapons, but not a right to kill people unless they are attacking you.

I could go on.

But it seems VERY CLEAR to me, that the govt does not have a place in telling people who they can marry, UNLESS it causes a danger.

Now, the danger is this. Firstly incest, it can cause medical issues. Secondly in minors because the rights theory says that minors don't actually have full rights or full responsibilities, and they therefore can consent. Others who can't consent are also in this category.

If you're going to ban "abnormal" people from marrying, then it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of about 300 million Americans who fit the term "abnormal".

 

[Penrod]

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !

Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.

In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"

Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.

I feel your pain. Even mentioning you think its a mental disease will cause people to call you an uneducated bigot. What has the US come to. If you are religious your a bigot and if your gay you ra moral stand up person.

 

[GISMYS]

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !

Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.

In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"

Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.

I feel your pain. Even mentioning you think its a mental disease will cause people to call you an uneducated bigot. What has the US come to. If you are religious your a bigot and if your gay you ra moral stand up person.

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!…isaiah 5:20

 

[MikeK]

I don't have to make an assclown out of your posts. You are doing a class A job of that your self. Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) Just another idiotic example of those who go around telling us that up is down, black is white, and cold is hot.

These moronic attempts at legitimizing an obvious mental aberration, is why queers will NEVER be accepted in society (except in idiot states > California, New York, etc), and the more they try to pass it off as normal, the more repressed they will be. For every unit of effort they expend to legitimize, there should and will be 10 units of effort to present the truth.

By now it is obvious your feelings in this matter are inflexible, so let's move to the next obvious consideration. Assume for the sake of discussion there has been a political revolution in America and you have been declared primal dictator. Your word is Law.

Specifically how would you deal with homosexuals and the issue of homosexuality?

 

[MaryL]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

 

[GISMYS]

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!
isaiah 5:20

 

[JakeStarkey]

heterofascism and homophobia are certainly mental disorders

Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.

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.

 

[Montrovant]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

As far as I'm concerned, question away.

However, that doesn't mean I or anyone else should refrain from questioning your judgement based on how or why you question the aberrant sexual behavior. Nor does it mean that I or anyone else should accept public policy based on a sexual behavior being abnormal.

 

[GreenBean]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex. Procreation - Breeding

The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease. HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.

So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity. The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 *** {Bi} and infected someone else and so on down the line. How many have lost their lives because some ****** needed to get his rocks off ?

How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ? How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .

 

[GreenBean]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

As per the Lords of Political Correctness

Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda

To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are not under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have kept quiet.

No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.

Got It !!??

 

[frigidweirdo]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

As per the Lords of Political Correctness

Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda

To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are not under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have kept quiet.

No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.

Got It !!??

So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex. Procreation - Breeding

The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease. HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.

So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity. The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 *** {Bi} and infected someone else and so on down the line. How many have lost their lives because some ****** needed to get his rocks off ?

How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ? How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .

I've made these points before.

Okay, sex is for breeding. We have a 7 billion population, TOO MANY people on earth, and you're worried about people having sex and not having children.

Are you going to stop ALL individuals who want to marry who have sex not to produce children from marrying? Or just the ones you don't like?

How does this fit into the US constitution exactly?

HIV can be passed from straight and gay people, this is a total non-issue, unless you want to prevent people who can have sex from marrying because they could pass on HIV/AIDS.

Also, a gay person isn't going to stop having sex with another person of he same sex because they can't marry. Think about it.

Also, insulting people won't change things. Using derogative words because you don't like something is really childish and petty. Do you want a debate, or do you just want to pound down on people?

 

[MikeK]

Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex. Procreation - Breeding

The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease. HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.

So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity. The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 *** {Bi} and infected someone else and so on down the line. How many have lost their lives because some ****** needed to get his rocks off ?

How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ? How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .

Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?

 

[MisterBeale]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

As per the Lords of Political Correctness

Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda

To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are not under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have kept quiet.

No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.

Got It !!??

So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.

Well, I think it's more than that. It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.

Why is that? I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth. Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind. Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.

First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay. That is hard to face in the political arena. Yes, being gay is not a choice. Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS. So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.

Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.

It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.

What would facing up to the abnormality mean? It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society. From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously. Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction. It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it. Perhaps even medications could be developed.

I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important. But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research. The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.

 

[protectionist]

Since I am not a proponent of smaller govt, I won't comment on that. I'll just say that the people can demand that society be structured according to how they want it to be. Govt of the people, by the people, for the people. If/whenever they decide that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (damage to mental health), and queers teaching in schools (danger to kids), then they have the right to PROTECT themselves from that.

Thus, in (IMO) stupid societies (ex. New York, California), queer marriage is legal. In (IMO) smart societies (ex. Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is banned.

And surely that "demand that society be structured" lark is THE US CONSTITUTION which most people seem to claim to support, and which gives individuals the right of protection from the US govt.

You're trying to claim mob rule, even after 223 years after the Bill or Rights was put into the constitution to stop MOB RULE over individuals.

And, to go to your argument, if they decide black people voting is dangerous, then they have "right to PROTECT themselves from that".

Right? hey, I have the right to protect myself from you? So I can ban you? You're dangerous, what with all that stuff talking about fluffy bunnies and all that, right? (Okay, I made that up about the bunnies, but whatever you get the point, I hope.).

I'd also say, your "right to PROTECT yourself" from anything you deem dangerous is not how the theory of rights actually works.

In all my time looking at politics, the one thing seems to be a constant. People do not have any single damn clue about what rights mean.

Get this. You can do whatever you like as long as it does not hurt others.

1) You can say what you like, as long as it does not hurt others. Ie, treason, libel or causing physical harm, and a few other things.

This is part of the 1st Amendment, right? The right is not absolute, and it protects you from the govt, however, it doesn't protect you to tread down on people.

So, you have a right to privacy, as long as you're not using it to tread down on people.

You have the right to own weapons, but not a right to kill people unless they are attacking you.

I could go on.

But it seems VERY CLEAR to me, that the govt does not have a place in telling people who they can marry, UNLESS it causes a danger.

Now, the danger is this. Firstly incest, it can cause medical issues. Secondly in minors because the rights theory says that minors don't actually have full rights or full responsibilities, and they therefore can consent. Others who can't consent are also in this category.

If you're going to ban "abnormal" people from marrying, then it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of about 300 million Americans who fit the term "abnormal".

Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE. Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.

They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not) Strike 2.

30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3. Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry. They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes. Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)

 

[protectionist]

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !

Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.

In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"

Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.

I feel your pain. Even mentioning you think its a mental disease will cause people to call you an uneducated bigot. What has the US come to. If you are religious your a bigot and if your gay you ra moral stand up person.

Depending on who is using the word "bigot", and how it's being used (or abused), the word bigot could be either a condemnation, or a badge of honor.

 

[protectionist]

I don't have to make an assclown out of your posts. You are doing a class A job of that your self. Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) Just another idiotic example of those who go around telling us that up is down, black is white, and cold is hot.

These moronic attempts at legitimizing an obvious mental aberration, is why queers will NEVER be accepted in society (except in idiot states > California, New York, etc), and the more they try to pass it off as normal, the more repressed they will be. For every unit of effort they expend to legitimize, there should and will be 10 units of effort to present the truth.

By now it is obvious your feelings in this matter are inflexible, so let's move to the next obvious consideration. Assume for the sake of discussion there has been a political revolution in America and you have been declared primal dictator. Your word is Law.

Specifically how would you deal with homosexuals and the issue of homosexuality?

1. The same way the US govt has dealt with them for half a century, by denying them protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

2. The same way 30 states have dealt with them for decades by denying them the right to marry one another.

3. The same way many states are dealing with them right now by enacting legislation similar to the recently defeated Arizona SB 1062.

4. By denying hem access to the military.

5. By denying them access to the NFL (as a player), or any sport involving physical contact.

6. By denying them the right to be teachers, counselors, coaches, clergy, or any occupation dealing with children.

7. By banning open/public displays of homosexuality (ex. 2 guys kissing on the lips or some other sexual contact)

 

[protectionist]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

Who says we can't question it. ? We do >> 24/7.