WFern:
As I've said, the American Psychological Association, as well as the American Psychiatric Association among numerous others, have shown it is not a disorder.

I'm curious to know what you do for a living, or how stocking shelves somehow gives you credibility over established science.

I don't think the APA has qualitatively shown that it's not a disorder. However, they also did not qualitatively show that it was a disorder. All the APA can do is classify a particular set of behaviors as a disorder (or not).
That being said, homosexuality is not a disorder any more than being dark haired or left handed.

/blond
//blue eyed
///right handed
////and FABULOUS!

WFern: Ouchies Homosexuality is a disorder because it prevents us from doing the one thing that we, as a species, is necessary to survive.

In addition, I happen to know a lesbian woman with three children of her own, biologically. I'm curious to know how this is "possible," using the drop-out logic you've employed thus far.

Okay, so here's my idea:

You know the adopt a highway foundation? Get a big-ass end-to-end section of highway adopted by organizations such as,

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,
National Coalition of Abortion Providers,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws,
so on and so forth.

Think anybody would drive along it?

ferrocene: Hmm...I'm pretty educated on the subject, and I have read theories that homosexuality IS a medical disorder. Specifically a viral infection that modifies certain genes.

You're not gay, therefore you know shiat about the 'subject'. Sorry, that's 10 kinds of fail.

I laugh at the idiots who are heterosexual and claim to know 'oh so much' about homosexuality.

First of all, we have to consider where this was published. Students aren't exactly the brightest and 'intelligent' discussion would mainly consist of what their parents told them growing up.

I'm all for free speech even for those who disagree with homosexuality, but making outright disgusting and obviously disruptive comments is not needed and I can only imagine how ever gay or lesbian, open and closeted, student at that school feels.

Homosexuals have no 'problem' pro-creating. I can easily have sex with a female and pro-create. So, are you saying that if someone is gay, has sex with a female and has a child, no longer has a disorder because they pro-created?

We are fully capable of pro-creating. Being gay doesn't disable you from having sex with someone of the opposite gender. It simply means you're sexually attracted to someone of the opposite gender.

Oh ya, and do it right through the bible belt.

And get some science organizations in there too.

PatientZero: Has anyone ever thought that maybe homosexuality helps keep a population in check, and thus helps ensure survival of the breeding segment of a population?

/just saying

Via what mechanism? How does "nature" determine when a population is out of balance? It's not like the earth has a control room with monitor techs and buttons to push in the event of such things.

I think the kid was on to something. Reproduction is the overwhelmingly obvious goal for living creatures. To engage in behavior contrary to this goal is in violation of this principle. If you discount the biological reasons completely, then that leaves us with choice alone as the sole explanation and God knows what kind of ass reaming you're in for if you suggest THAT as a possibility.

Truthfully, I think it's a behavioral predisposition dictated by biology. I don't think it will be "genetic" in nature, therefore not something that can be "fixed". Truthfully, how many homos would rather be "straight"? And what are the moral ramifications of the ability to "cure" the condition?

It's a fun debate amongst mature adults, but pragmatically, I think we should emphasize that cocksucking, ass-pounding freaks are just a part of society, and they should be left to do what it is they do as long as they're not hurting anyone but each other.

But that's just one man's take.

Torc: If homosexuality is an abomination, why did god make the rectum dick-sized?

Huh. This hole time, I thought the anus was poop-sized.

So I dunno. Maybe because queers have poop-sized dicks, they're just getting confused?

motobvious: Torc: If homosexuality is an abomination, why did god make the rectum dick-sized?

Huh. This hole time, I thought the anus was poop-sized.

So I dunno. Maybe because queers have poop-sized dicks, they're just getting confused?

Maybe poop is more anus-sized?

/I think your dick is "nostril-sized"

Can I change my screen name to poop-sized?

Maybe poop is more anus-sized?

/I think your dick is "nostril-sized"

It is. Elephant-nostril-sized. And you might be right; poop might conform to anus-sizing...unless you've eaten a great deal of cheese.

So maybe I had it wrong. Maybe the right answer to the original question should have been: So that queers don't fall on each other's swords to death.

squishface: Can I change my screen name to poop-sized?

Only if you're a watermelon at heart.

motobvious: Maybe poop is more anus-sized?

/I think your dick is "nostril-sized"

It is. Elephant-nostril-sized. And you might be right; poop might conform to anus-sizing...unless you've eaten a great deal of cheese.

So maybe I had it wrong. Maybe the right answer to the original question should have been: So that queers don't fall on each other's swords to death.

Maybe an elephant on this scale:

Maybe an elephant on this scale:

Whoa! That guy's hand is HUGE.

Q: How many queers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: 68. 1 to screw in the light bulb and 67 to repeat "righty tighty" whilst palm-clapping.

Technically, the article is correct. Homosexuality wastes reproductive energy along non-productive channels, and is therefore a disorder.

Of course, you could make the exact same argument against celebacy or chicks who are into oral, but the writer's reasoning is sound here.

motobvious: Maybe an elephant on this scale:

Whoa! That guy's hand is HUGE.

Q: How many queers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: 68. 1 to screw in the light bulb and 67 to repeat "righty tighty" whilst palm-clapping.

Of course "lefty loosey" could also be applied to your anal sphincter. Or so your dad told me.

Way late to teh ghey thread I know, but after reading it, the funniest thing is the way ghey supporters dance around the issue of homosexuality being genetic, not a choice, yet, not at all a bad thing, even though the desire to procreate is necessary for the survival of humanity as a whole. Kinda funny...

Coolboy55: squirrelinator: I don't mean to say that the government should make laws to imprison or execute gays evangelical christians or something like that, but rather to help them. There should be programs to help them with their unfortunate condition.

FTFY

whatshisname: NateInYourFace: The fact than humankind has found an alternate way to use the anus doesn't make God obsolete - instead it once again underscores what is at the core of the Bible - that man is fallen, will find every way possible to misuse what God intended for good (who doesn't enjoy a good poop) and we need a saviour, namely, Jesus.

Shut up.

Great response!

/idiot

Mearen: There are two options here, either gay is a choice or it's a medical condition.

No, there is a third option: that it is perfectly normal.
No more of a disorder than a black person being black.


Mearen: Either option doesn't rule out gay being wrong. I guess that's too simple for most fag hags to understand though, and they would rather call anyone that disagrees with them bigots.

The fact that you call them either evil by choice or diseased based only on your own opinion of homosexuality makes you a bigot.


Kangaroo_Ralph: You can't attribute all homosexual tendencies to a birth disorder. Some of it has to be due to a mental disorder caused by some sort of trauma.

Why?
No study that I'm aware of has linked homosexuality to trauma. If t is a "mental disorder", it has no other function than to make men prefer other men. Since it does not cause them any dysfunction, stress, or inability to live their lives to their own satisfaction, therefore it doesn't qualify as a disorder.


master_dman: I could totally agree with this.
Speaking from a scientific standpoint..
We are born to reproduce.

I couldn't.
It doesn't meet the criteria of a disorder, and the evidence is that whatever genetic predisposition causes people to be gay, also causes their female relatives to be more fertile. Therefore it actually helps human reproduction and propagates the "gay gene".


Noam Chimpsky: Would those who have a problem with the student's opinion still have a problem with it if he said:

"homosexuality is a medical disorder as much as Huntington's Disease"?

Yes.
Because it isn't a medical disorder by any definition of the word.
My mom has Huntingtons, I can attest to all the terrible things it does. Homosexuality causes absolutely no physical or mental dysfunction that interferes with their ability to conduct their own life. It is not a disorder.


homesar: "bonding" is not the same as "behavior"

How, exactly?
Did you miss the part about bull bison "courting" and engaging in anal penetration? How is that not "homosexual behavior"?


Ouchies: Thank you.
Homosexuality is a disorder because it prevents us from doing the one thing that we, as a species, is necessary to survive. That impairment of basic human functions is what defines a "disorder".

No, it actually doesn't. Gay people can have children if they choose to, and some have. It doesn't impair their functionality in the least. Being gay is no more of a disorder than choosing not to have children.


Ouchies: It's a disorder. Get over it. Just like ADHD, ED, or even downs.

Well since it doesn't cause any actual impairment, it isn't.
Get over it.


My coworker has a downs child and she doesn't seem to enjoy life any less because of her condition.

Irrelevant. Even if she is happy, Down's still causes physical impairments. Being gay causes no physical dysfunction nor mental stress.


Atreyou40: I think the kid was on to something. Reproduction is the overwhelmingly obvious goal for living creatures. To engage in behavior contrary to this goal is in violation of this principle.

Reproduction is not a moral imperative. We don't call married couples who choose not to have children immortal, or against nature, for doing so, and we wouldn't consider them to have a disorder despite their behavior. Whether gay people choose to have children is of absolutely no relevance.


Atreyou40: Truthfully, I think it's a behavioral predisposition dictated by biology. I don't think it will be "genetic" in nature, therefore not something that can be "fixed".

Where do "biological predispositions" come from if not genetics?
There are some studies around that attest to a genetic cause, also.


yobbery: In a Darwinian sense homosexuality could be considered a disorder for obvious reasons.

No, it wouldn't, because that would imply that it has a negative effect on reproduction. If that were the case, it would have been stamped out by evolution. However, there have been studies that showed that female relatives of gays are more fertile. Therefore gays are a boon for reproduction. In a Darwinian sense.

PAPASandBEER: Way late to teh ghey thread I know, but after reading it, the funniest thing is the way ghey supporters dance around the issue of homosexuality being genetic, not a choice, yet, not at all a bad thing, even though the desire to procreate is necessary for the survival of humanity as a whole. Kinda funny...

OK, the next person who says this is gonna get a dick-punch (or if your a lady, a labia-slap). I really don't think the human race needs to worry about survival at this point. I think that nature, in her infinite wisdom, knew that the humans were gonna be screwing left and right and take over the planet, and put gayness into the world to help as a population control. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone who has been gay since the dawn of man had actually been straight and actively procreated? We'd be in worse shape that we are now.

Reproduction is not as crucial to our existence right now. Hell, we could actually stand to lose about a billion people to make the planet able to sustain us for any reasonable amount of time. In fact, one could argue that NOT reproducing is actually MORE crucial to our existance.

While reproduction is an instinct inherent in straights and gays alike, there some people in both camps who don't feel the need to spit out kids left and right all the live long day. Our desire to procreat, at this point, akin to cats and dogs acting on millenia-old instincts that they no longer need due to domestication.

That, and screwing feels good.

Freiheit666: be as gay as you want, just don't call it normal

Why is it abnormal?

If it were normal, we wouldn't call it GAY, now would we?

Queers can be fags if they want.

Freiheit666: Freiheit666: be as gay as you want, just don't call it normal

Why is it abnormal?

If it were normal, we wouldn't call it GAY, now would we?

You're failing six ways from Sunday, my friend.

Mouser: Technically, the article is correct. Homosexuality wastes reproductive energy along non-productive channels, and is therefore a disorder.

There is no such thing as "reproductive energy", and "wasting energy" has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a disorder. FAIL.


Mouser: Of course, you could make the exact same argument against celebacy or chicks who are into oral, but the writer's reasoning is sound here.

No, that is precisely why his reasoning isn't sound.
Unless you're going to suggest that priests, people who masturbate or engage in oral sex, or couples who choose not to have children have a disorder, then the reasoning is fatally flawed.


PAPASandBEER: Way late to teh ghey thread I know, but after reading it, the funniest thing is the way ghey supporters dance around the issue of homosexuality being genetic, not a choice, yet, not at all a bad thing, even though the desire to procreate is necessary for the survival of humanity as a whole. Kinda funny...

Once again, several things turn your ridiculous logic on its head:
1) Being gay does NOT mean that they can't have children. Many do.
2) Gay genetics generally cause their female relatives to be more fertile, thus increasing birth rate overall.
3) Reproduction is not a moral imperative. We don't call married couples who choose not to have children immoral, or against nature, for doing so, and we wouldn't consider them to have a disorder.

Whether gay people choose to have children is of absolutely no relevance.

Of course "lefty loosey" could also be applied to your anal sphincter. Or so your dad told me.

My dad's dead, but thanks for bringing up that painful memory. What you said was hurtful and I want you to apologize for offending me. Got sit in a rainbow-colored fart cloud.

Whether gay people choose to have children is of absolutely no relevance.

It damn well is! I don't want more sprites springing up around this neighborhood!

Fags are like cigarettes.

Fags are also like a bunch of little sticks.

You're failing six ways from Sunday, my friend.

Yeah, sure, whatever that means. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

When gays go around telling everyone that they are normal, what they really mean is that they deserve the same respect and dignity that any other human being deserves, that they are worth the same as any "straight" person. That may be true, but I'm not addressing that question.

Its a simple fact, if gay were normal, then we wouldn't have a name for it.

I'm not bashing, telling anyone gay is bad, talking about god, anything like that. But I do draw the line at gay being called normal.

Take your dignity and worth argument as far as you like. That's not what I'm here for. Gay is not normal, its gay. Simple, and beyond dispute, no matter how gay or straight you are.

motobvious: Of course "lefty loosey" could also be applied to your anal sphincter. Or so your dad told me.

My dad's dead, but thanks for bringing up that painful memory. What you said was hurtful and I want you to apologize for offending me. Got sit in a rainbow-colored fart cloud.

Dude, the fact that you are still letting your dead dad fark you in the ass is sad.

So I apologize.

/thank god for rigor mortis

Freiheit666: You're failing six ways from Sunday, my friend.

Yeah, sure, whatever that means. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

When gays go around telling everyone that they are normal, what they really mean is that they deserve the same respect and dignity that any other human being deserves, that they are worth the same as any "straight" person. That may be true, but I'm not addressing that question.

Its a simple fact, if gay were normal, then we wouldn't have a name for it.

I'm not bashing, telling anyone gay is bad, talking about god, anything like that. But I do draw the line at gay being called normal.

Take your dignity and worth argument as far as you like. That's not what I'm here for. Gay is not normal, its gay. Simple, and beyond dispute, no matter how gay or straight you are.

Wow, so heterosexuality isn't normal because we call it "straight?"

/your logic is impeccable

Wow, so heterosexuality isn't normal because we call it "straight?"

Yep. That's exactly what my post says. Excellent job. Keep up the good work.

Freiheit666:
When gays black people go around telling everyone that they are normal, what they really mean is that they deserve the same respect and dignity that any other human being deserves, that they are worth the same as any "straight" "non-black" person. That may be true, but I'm not addressing that question.

Its a simple fact, if gay black people were normal, then we wouldn't have a name for it.

I'm not bashing, telling anyone gay being black is bad, talking about god, anything like that. But I do draw the line at gay black people being called normal.

Take your dignity and worth argument as far as you like. That's not what I'm here for. Gay Being black is not normal, its gay being black. Simple, and beyond dispute, no matter how gay black or straight non-black you are.

By your logic, if being black were not normal, we wouldn't have a name for it. Of course, you could insert any race, religion, or object in there. If we have a name for it, it's not normal.

Mayor Bee:

By your logic, if being black were not normal, we wouldn't have a name for it. Of course, you could insert any race, religion, or object in there. If we have a name for it, it's not normal.

/damn not previewing

Gawdzilla

Wow, that is so incredibly, insultingly condescending.
This is precisely why we shouldn't be a Christian nation.
Those "Reorientation" camps that Christians send gay kids to are not only almost wholly ineffective, they have no peer-reviewed science behind them, they have been found numerous times to employ unethical "psychological treatments", unlicensed people administering drugs, and have lead to numerous suicides of gay kids.

source please?
.

Whatever.

Have fun being gay and pretending that its normal.

Freiheit666: Its a simple fact, if gay were normal, then we wouldn't have a name for it.

You mean like "straight"?


Freiheit666: I'm not bashing, telling anyone gay is bad, talking about god, anything like that. But I do draw the line at gay being called normal.

There are two ways you could consider normality.
If you define "normal" as the average, or most common or prevalent, then yes I would agree that being gay is not normal. But then, neither would having red hair or being 6ft or taller.

However, if you define "normal" as a trait that is expected and not unusual within a given population, then being gay is perfectly normal. Gays (and coincidentally 6-footers as well) make up between 5-10% of the population. A population of any significant size would expect to have a sizable number of gay and tall people. It would not be uncommon.

Both definitions of the word "normal" are valid, but I would suggest that only the second one is a useful definition of the word. So many things that are generally accepted and NOT looked at as unusual would be considered abnormal under the first definition. Would you say carrot-tops and tall people are abnormal? If not, your opinion should compel you to choose the second definition as well, thus making homosexuality perfectly normal. Unless, of course, you're admitting that you're biased against gays.

Gay is not abnormal because we call it "gay."

Gay is abnormal because I have a friend named Grizz who once showed me that it's abnormal by jamming his two index fingers together and saying, "this don't work."

/no, he didn't proceed to jam his index finger into a circle made by his thumb and other pointer finger to show me what "did work."
//Grizz isn't his Christian name.

Unless, of course, you're admitting that you're biased against gays.

Ha, where do you think "queer" came from?

Why do people insist on calling queers "gays." They're not very happy. They all sulk and cry a lot and complain about nothing all day on the internet.

Dude, the fact that you are still letting your dead dad fark you in the ass is sad.

So I apologize.

/thank god for rigor mortis

Ha ha! So 987654 must be the security combination on your luggage. Or does it stand for the amount of times you've read Edward II?

NateInYourFace: Gawdzilla

Wow, that is so incredibly, insultingly condescending.
This is precisely why we shouldn't be a Christian nation.
Those "Reorientation" camps that Christians send gay kids to are not only almost wholly ineffective, they have no peer-reviewed science behind them, they have been found numerous times to employ unethical "psychological treatments", unlicensed people administering drugs, and have lead to numerous suicides of gay kids.

source please?
.

Sure.

Wholly ineffective:

A 2002 peer-reviewed study found that 88% of participants failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or attempting to remain celibate, with no change in attraction. Many of the participants who failed felt a sense of shame and had gone through conversion therapy programs for many years. Of the 8 respondents (out of a sample of 202) who reported a change in sexual orientation, 7 were employed in paid or unpaid roles as ex-gay counselors or group leaders, something which has led many to question whether even this small "success" rate is in fact reliable. -- Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical, and Research Perspectives. New York: Haworth Medical Press. ISBN 0789019108.

No credible peer-reviewed science:
There is exactly one peer-reviewed paper on "reparative therapy". This is what was said about it --

The paper has been criticized on various grounds, including using non-random sampling and poor criteria for "success". Critics argue that it relied upon samples selected by conversion therapists themselves (86 participants were handpicked by ex-gay organizations), that proper random samplings were not used, that small samplings were used, that the subjects appeared to be ex-gay advocates who may have been biased in favor of conversion therapies, that 60% of the subjects had previously reported being bisexual, and that no follow-up study had been carried out to ascertain long-term conversion. -- Attempts To Change Sexual Orientation. University of California, Davis Depatment of Psychology. Retrieved on 2007-08-28.

Unlisenced administration of drugs and psychotherapy:

On Sept 12, the state of Tennessee announced that its Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities had determined that Love in Action is operating two "unlicensed mental health supportive living facilities."

"The [state] went in and visited and found that they were providing room, board and personal care for mentally ill people," said Rachel Lassiter, deputy press secretary for Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D). "The clients were determined to be mentally ill because some of them had been treated by psychiatrists and were on medication."
-- Tennessee may shut down 'ex-gay' facility (pops)

Unethical treatment:

In 1991 14-year-old Lyn Duff came out publicly as a lesbian. Reportedly concerned about her daughter's sexual orientation, Lyn Duff's mother had her taken by force from her grandparents' home to Rivendell Psychiatric Center. Her treatment reportedly included shock therapy, aversion therapy, psychotropic drugs, hypnosis, and behavioral counseling (for instance, being told to wear dresses and make up, etc). After 168 days in Rivendell, Duff escaped. In 1992, she initiated legal action against the facility and her mother. In 1993, Duff's therapist at Rivendell, R. Mark Hinckley, left Rivendell to start Turnabout, a similar camp to treat gay youth in Salt Lake City.

Causes suicide:
According to John Evans, the co-founder of Love In Action...

"In the past 30 years since leaving the 'ex-gay' ministry I have seen nothing but shattered lives, depression and even suicide among those connected with the 'ex-gay' movement," Evans writes in his letter to John Smid, Love In Action's current director.

Evans left his life partner of ten years to start the gay conversion group. He later dropped out after he realized it didn't work and his best friend committed suicide because he could not turn heterosexual. -- LOVE IN ACTION CO-FOUNDER: 'MY MINISTRY SHATTERS LIVES '

Is that enough for you?
I suppose I could go on, but that's all the time I'm willing to devote to someone who I am pretty sure won't consider, nor even really read anything I have to say.

Gawdzila I suppose I could go on, but that's all the time I'm willing to devote to someone who I am pretty sure won't consider, nor even really read anything I have to say.

I'm impressed with how much of your life you just wasted. Seriously though. I don't trust those references. You should list 5-10 credible sources.

PAPASandBEER: Way late to teh ghey thread I know, but after reading it, the funniest thing is the way ghey supporters dance around the issue of homosexuality being genetic, not a choice, yet, not at all a bad thing, even though the desire to procreate is necessary for the survival of humanity as a whole. Kinda funny...

The evolutionary imperative is that a species adapts to survive, not for a species simply to breed. Reproduction is necessary for survival, but it's not necessary from every member of the species. Unchecked breeding and overpopulation work against the survival of the species and would no doubt be an evolutionary disadvantage, something nature would find a way to moderate. Hmm...what could that mechanism be?

Zoultan: I'm impressed with how much of your life you just wasted.

Meh, didn't take that long, and I'm waiting for laundry ;)


Zoultan: Seriously though. I don't trust those references.

That's pretty weak.
You don't trust the UC Davis Department of Psychology?
The Haworth Medical Press (scholarly journal publisher)?
Are you gonna deny that John Evans wrote that letter? It is pretty widely published.
Those are credible sources, and I don't particularly care if you trust them. It isn't my responsibility to prove my case by digging around until you're satisfied. If you have a problem with them, the onus is on you to show me why the sources aren't credible. They certainly don't come from an obviously biased source. Who do you suppose would be credible?

Prophetica Insipia: Dorian Yates is NOT gay.

You know, i know this is at the very very very bottom here...and that no one will read it....

but i just want to say that I am a psychology major, and in hisotry up to the 1970's DOCTORS actually thought that homosexuality was a disorder. a psychological disorder. maybe the "down's syndrome" was a bad comparison, but yeah. This was a very "legitimate" view held by many of the world's elite.

And just as an ass-covering move....no i don't agree with this opinion, i just thought I'd throw in some science and history for you all.

dovebair: You know, i know this is at the very very very bottom here...and that no one will read it....

but i just want to say that I am a psychology major, and in hisotry up to the 1970's DOCTORS actually thought that homosexuality was a disorder. a psychological disorder. maybe the "down's syndrome" was a bad comparison, but yeah. This was a very "legitimate" view held by many of the world's elite.

And just as an ass-covering move....no i don't agree with this opinion, i just thought I'd throw in some science and history for you all.

Up to the 1960s, we made blacks sit in the back of the bus. I'm going to write an op-ed about how they belong there.

BonesawMcGraw: Prophetica Insipia: Dorian Yates is NOT gay.

Dorian Gray was questionable though,
always looking at that damned portrait!

j/k

dovebair: You know, i know this is at the very very very bottom here...and that no one will read it....

What you say is historically accurate...
However, the guys who invented the "DOCTORS" you refer to, felt very differently.

If you want to go back to the good ol' days, make sure you go all the way back