Is Homosexuality a Disorder?

[annabenedetti]

Because there is no physical evidence regarding mental issues. Its all subjective opinion. The only physical evidence that exists on this matter are a man's & a woman's reproductive organs. They tell the truth. The rest is pointy-headed crap.

You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

Brilliant response, your usual factless, ignorant drivel.

Report THAT, thread Nazi.

Here are facts:
Same-sex attraction is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II. That it is not listed as a disorder in the DSM IV, does that mean that it is not a disorder? Of course not. The APA can be wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite may be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is, the APA did not discover one single shred of evidence that caused it to remove same-sex attraction as a disorder. It was pure politics. Remember: The APA is a lobbying group; it is not a bunch of doctors who are pure as the driven snow.

 

[annabenedetti]

Brilliant response, your usual factless, ignorant drivel.

Report THAT, thread Nazi.

I give you what I think you can handle, Biff.

 

[MrDante]

Here are facts:
Same-sex attraction is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II. That it is not listed as a disorder in the DSM IV, does that mean that it is not a disorder? Of course not. The APA can be wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite may be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is, the APA did not discover one single shred of evidence that caused it to remove same-sex attraction as a disorder.

That is blatantly false. the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was based on the evidence of more than seventy individual studies. It was the small group of individuals demanding that homosexuality not be removed from teh DSM that was unable to produce any evidence in support of their position.

It was pure politics. Remember: The APA is a lobbying group; it is not a bunch of doctors who are pure as the driven snow.

It ended up being pure politics. When that small group of individuals who wanted to continue pretending homosexuality was a mental illness, despite the complete lack of evidence that it was, they invoked a badly worded by-law forcing the whole membership of the APA to vote on the topic. It was a move of desperation and an embarrassment to the entire profession, science isn't decided by politics. It's important to note that nearly 50 years later there still is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Brilliant response, your usual factless, ignorant drivel.
Report THAT, thread Nazi.

I give you what I think you can handle, Biff.

No, you just give all you've got: Nothing.

Here are facts:
Same-sex attraction is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II. That it is not listed as a disorder in the DSM IV, does that mean that it is not a disorder? Of course not. The APA can be wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite may be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is, the APA did not discover one single shred of evidence that caused it to remove same-sex attraction as a disorder. It was pure politics. Remember: The APA is a lobbying group; it is not a bunch of doctors who are pure as the driven snow.

 

[MrDante]

According to who? You? Don't say the corrupt APA. If you don't think that a man who is turned on by another man's hairy rear-end suffers from a disorder then maybe YOU have a disorder.

Once again: Same-sex attraction is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II. That it is not listed as a disorder in the DSM IV, does that mean that it is not a disorder? Of course not. The APA can be wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite may be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is, the APA did not discover one single shred of evidence that caused it to remove same-sex attraction as a disorder. It was pure politics. Remember: The APA is a lobbying group; it is not a bunch of doctors who are pure as the driven snow.

Repeating incorrect statements will not make them any more true.

 

[MrDante]

Because there is no physical evidence regarding mental issues. Its all subjective opinion. The only physical evidence that exists on this matter are a man's & a woman's reproductive organs. They tell the truth. The rest is pointy-headed crap.

More evidence that you have not read a single word on the topic.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

That is blatantly false. the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was based on the evidence of more than seventy individual studies........

There is no evidence. You're "evidence" is all subjective opinion. I've read some the studies, they are all convoluted crap. They start our with what THEY think is normal or not normal, then apply THEIR standards to the behaviors THEY think are pertinent... ...its all a load of garbage. Its on the same level as the Ancient Aliens TV show, drawing crappy conclusions from moronic observations.

 

[musterion]

I don't think you understand how "perm-ignore" works.

When someone reports me, it gets my attention. Even you, sweetie.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

More evidence that you have not read a single word on the topic.

Did nature intend a penis to go in a waste-disposal anus? Yes or no.

 

[musterion]

Did nature intend a species propagating penis to go in a waste-disposal anus? Yes or no.

That IS the question.

 

[MrDante]

There is no evidence. You're "evidence" is all subjective opinion. I've read some the studies, they are all convoluted crap. They start our with what THEY think is normal or not normal, then apply THEIR standards to the behaviors THEY think are pertinent...

You just showed that you have never read any of those studies.

 

[MrDante]

They start our with what THEY think is normal or not normal, then apply THEIR standards to the behaviors THEY think are pertinent... ...its all a load of garbage. Its on the same level as the Ancient Aliens TV show, drawing crappy conclusions from moronic observations.

Actually that is what you are doing here...

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You just showed that you have never read any of those studies.

And YOU just showed that you're an idiot. Well, actually, you've been showing that since you started posting.

I don't think you understand how "perm-ignore" works.

Oh, please please PLEEEEEZZZ put me on ignore too. The same goes for Sissyphus and MrDangly

 

[annabenedetti]

When someone reports me, it gets my attention. Even you, sweetie.

Which has nothing to do with taking me off "perm-ignore." :chuckle:

 

[musterion]

Which has nothing to do with taking me off "perm-ignore." :chuckle:

Just take the only point I intended to make.

I am standing up for God's order and design.

You are defending the violation and perversion of it.

Then you have the GALL to turn around and attempt to quote Scripture on me, when you no longer (never did) believe it.

Your condemnation is sure, lest you repent.

NOW you're back where you need to be, sweetie. Invisible.

 

[MrDante]

I am standing up for God's order and design.

How does the almost constant barrage of personal attacks and your habit of hateful name calling accomplish that?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

There is no evidence. You're "evidence" is all subjective opinion. I've read some the studies, they are all convoluted crap. They start our with what THEY think is normal or not normal, then apply THEIR standards to the behaviors THEY think are pertinent... ...its all a load of garbage. Its on the same level as the Ancient Aliens TV show, drawing crappy conclusions from moronic observations.

Actually that is what you are doing here...

I don't know if you're an idiot or just a liar. Probably both.

I start out with normality: That normal men and woman are sexually attracted to each other. You try to use every ignorant argument in the book to say that its normal for a man to be attracted to another man. Its not. Its disordered and perverted.


Here are facts:
Same-sex attraction is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II. That it is not listed as a disorder in the DSM IV, does that mean that it is not a disorder? Of course not. The APA can be wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite may be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is, the APA did not discover one single shred of evidence that caused it to remove same-sex attraction as a disorder. It was pure politics. Remember: The APA is a lobbying group; it is not a bunch of doctors who are pure as the driven snow.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

How does the almost constant barrage of personal attacks and your habit of hateful name calling accomplish that?

Oh, pulleeeeezz, don't start playing the victim now. How predictable.

 

[annabenedetti]

Just take the only point I intended to make.

Sorry, you've already shown your inconsistency when it comes to the meaning of words.

I am standing up for God's order and design.

By turning Selaphiel's name into an STD. Right. So un-grace-filled. So you.

You are defending the violation and perversion of it.

Then you have the GALL to turn around and attempt to quote Scripture on me, when you no longer (never did) believe it.

Your condemnation is sure, lest you repent.

I'm defending the constitutional rights of citizens to not to have you lurking outside their bedroom window.

NOW you're back where you need to be, sweetie. Invisible.

Until the next time you take me off "perm-ignore" for 'just this time.'