Homosexuality

[Stuck_In_California]

Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

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 last publication, 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 it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, 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 "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?

[Captain Obvious]

Is cunnilingus unnatural?

[patrickt]

The only time someones sexual preference is an issue with me is when I am considering having sex with them. Then it matters. It simply doesn't matter in the rest of my life.

I think people who are consumed with homosexuality, either for or against, have a disorder.

[Chris]

From what I recall of the APA reasoning for removing homosexuality as a disorder is disorders are defined by patients, iow, something is a disorder if patients go to psychiatrist to complain about it as a problem.

The APA doesn't define social norms, society does, and a majority seem to be coming to accept it.

Careful not to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

[KC]

Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

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 last publication, 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 it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, 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 "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?

You have not presented a coherent argument for your first claim, that homosexuality is a disorder. Why do you believe that the APA originally had it right? Based on what evidence?

[Shoot the Goose]

Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

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 last publication, 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 it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, 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 "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?

See what I bolded, although your complete moronic post is not limited to just those items. Let me say in no uncertain terms that your view is stupid, uninformed, and arrogant. You stated things as fact that are just plain idiotic. What a dumbass would say.

Other species, mammalian and reptilian, where I am most familiar, produce "homosexual" individuals. Is it "abnormal" ? Sure, if looking at statistics not-within-the norm. But it is certainly natural. What of the hermaphrodite individual ? With sexual organs male and female ? Is that only an exterior phenomenon ? Is it not possible that the brain is also improperly wired ?

In every forum, there is a dickhead or two that comes along with the pathetically juvenile and stupid view that you have posted. I am conservative/libertarian thru and thru. But first and foremost, you are one dumb jackass, who discredits all other things Conservative and/or Libertarian.

Every side has its fools. Doesn't make it right though. And you ain't right.

[IGetItAlready]

I don't care about anyone's sexual preference either.
However I do take issue with the full court press to marginalize me and those like me who in fact consider homosexuality a "sexual preference".
S_I_C does a great job of illustrating the natural state of sexuality and the fact of the matter is an absence of that instinct to procreate IS in fact a defect or whatever "less offensive" term you'd like to label it as.

The way I see it the push for acceptance of all things gay is but one aspect of the liberal assault on the family. And why would anyone attempt to attack the traditional family? I'm sure there are many reasons and I'm sure some gay activists and proponents don't even consider their position "anti-family". But I believe the ultimate goal is for government to take the place of the family and we've already seen much progress to that end.

We still had the poor and needy prior to welfare and entitlements and though I'm sure there were some exceptions, just as I'm sure there still are today, for the most part those folks were not dying in the streets. The poor and needy were for the most part cared and provided for by family members and the community at large. Today by contrast government has made itself responsible for doling out the help with resources it collects from all of us. Seems like a nice idea on the surface until you consider the lengths government goes to in order to now dissuade the kind of help that they now feel only they can give (ie: the Philadelphia woman who was feeding hungry children at her home and was shut down by the city, the Cristo Viene Church food pantry in Vegas being forced to close , etc).

In addition, the government likes to now tell parents how to raise their children. Spanking is out and new aged touchy feely bull$#@! is all but required. And though you're still free to teach your kids about the faith of your choice, if that faith happens to be Christian any manifestation of that faith in a public school is prohibited. And if your particular faith takes issue with homosexuality and your child shows any sign of subscribing to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, you may find yourself taking a few days off work or paying for childcare as your child serves an out of school suspension for their "hateful intolerance".
Just this week we were treated to the story of how one clearly confused mother was successful in outlawing all "Father/Daughter" dances in her child's school.

And when exactly did our current first lady become the food Gestapo? My kids have $#@!ed and complained about this year's school lunches since the first day of classes. The opposition to the new food standards in my kids' school has been so widespread that the school held an assembly in which kitchen staff threw Mrs Obama under the bus for some widely unpopular creations like "meatless spaghetti" and "meatless tacos". (Funny side note: My daughter was reprimanded during that assembly when one of the speakers mentioned hamburger and she asked, "Don't you mean meatless hamburger?" Just try being a responsible parent when you're told about that one and you need to leave the room to laugh your ass off) And I just saw a news story last night that reported how students in Wisconsin have taken to protesting Mrs Obama's new school lunch regulations. And who could forget the little preschool girl who was told the sack lunch her mom had made for her was unacceptable? (Yeah, HuffPo for the source haters )

If the government can eclipse the family as the most important and influential force in people's lives they open the door for more control of our lives and as mentioned, supporting and even forcing tolerance of a defect that if ever to become the norm would signal not only the end of the family as we know it but also the end of humanity in general, is but one angle being taken toward that end.

[KC]

I And I just saw a news story last night that reported how students in Wisconsin have taken to protesting Mrs Obama's new school lunch regulations.

I apologize on behalf of my state. We're a bunch of fat asses.

[IGetItAlready]

I apologize on behalf of my state. We're a bunch of fat asses.

Sounds to me like you're a bunch of people raising your kids to take offense to being told what to eat.
As such, I applaud you.

[Calypso Jones]

well. paris hilton is in trouble today for her remarks about homosexuals. Seems it is politically incorrect to speak the truth....where someone can hear it. lol