Homosexuals are a disease, but luckily they've found the cure!
- Thread starter Mystech
- Start date
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
No. I do not believe it to be a disorder. Im just wondering that if being born gay is genetic, then wouldnt pedophillia, incest, and beastiality be genetic to? If gay people are born to like a same sex partner before they even know what sex they are, then cant pedos be born knowing that they like little kids before they know what little kids are? Or beastiallity? Im just wondering. Which one is genetics, which one is psychology, and whats the big difference?
CounslerCoffee - Does this help to clarify the two?
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Source: APA Online
Paraphilias and Sexual Disorders
Common Characteristics
Paraphilias all have in common distressing and repetitive sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors. These fantasies, urges, or behaviors must occur for a significant period of time and must interfere with either satisfactory sexual relations or everyday functioning if the diagnosis is to be made. There is also a sense of distress within these individuals. In other words, they typically recognize the symptoms as negatively impacting their life but feel as if they are unable to control them.
Disorders in this Category
Exhibitionism
Fetishism
Frotteurism
Pedophilia
Sexual Masochism
Sexual Sadism
Transvestic Fetishism
Voyeurism
Source: ALLPSYCH Online
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Source: APA Online
Paraphilias and Sexual Disorders
Common Characteristics
Paraphilias all have in common distressing and repetitive sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors. These fantasies, urges, or behaviors must occur for a significant period of time and must interfere with either satisfactory sexual relations or everyday functioning if the diagnosis is to be made. There is also a sense of distress within these individuals. In other words, they typically recognize the symptoms as negatively impacting their life but feel as if they are unable to control them.
Disorders in this Category
Exhibitionism
Fetishism
Frotteurism
Pedophilia
Sexual Masochism
Sexual Sadism
Transvestic Fetishism
Voyeurism
Source: ALLPSYCH Online
On another note I don't think that any theory suggests that homosexuality is purely genetic, just that there may be some genetic basis for it. I don't deny that there are likely psychological factors involved, too, though I still don't see it as a disorder, remember there are psychological factors which drive people to become a lawyer, or to own a fishing boat, this doesn't mean that it's some sort of trauma or abuse which "warps" one into becoming a homosexual.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Okay, Im still not getting this. If your a homosexual then it's genetic. If your a pedo, then your just screwed up period (Which, btw, they are). So if being a homosexual is genetic, then why isn't being a pedo genetic to? I just don't get it. Your saying that the sexual orientation of someone is decided at birth. But what they want to have sex with isn't?
So you just have a problem with the idea of sexual orientation, then? I don't understand exactly what's hanging you up here.
Well I don't know about ultimately decided at birth, there may be physical factors which won't show up until around peuberty. . .
Reguarding pedophiles, does it strike you as being od that the desire to have a non-consentual relationship with a child or a horse, or what have you, is caused by some sort of deep rooted psychological problem, or mental dysfunction? You know, another interesting thing is that it's possable to profile a pedophile, yet there isn't any "homosexual mind set" as it were. Doesn't this suggest to you that there are certain rather spacific circumstances which would warp one to become a pedophile, as opposed to homosexuality which seems to be quite a bit more open, and without such things?
(By the way, this is my 911th post, lets all pause for a moment of silence!)
Well I don't know about ultimately decided at birth, there may be physical factors which won't show up until around peuberty. . .
Reguarding pedophiles, does it strike you as being od that the desire to have a non-consentual relationship with a child or a horse, or what have you, is caused by some sort of deep rooted psychological problem, or mental dysfunction? You know, another interesting thing is that it's possable to profile a pedophile, yet there isn't any "homosexual mind set" as it were. Doesn't this suggest to you that there are certain rather spacific circumstances which would warp one to become a pedophile, as opposed to homosexuality which seems to be quite a bit more open, and without such things?
(By the way, this is my 911th post, lets all pause for a moment of silence!)
The answer to this lies in choice, since I'm hetero I can only base this from that standpoint but I can probably equate my feelings for my likes with those likes of alternate sexuality. Also a good friend of mine gives me very good insight on homosexuality.
As far as I'm concerned there are only 2 real attractions here, you either like female or male, other likes such as hair color, height, weight, etc forms within the structure of your upbringing within your society. Liking children or animals is not genetic, it is a product of your upbringing. I doubt seriously there is a gene that tells you that you will like redheads or fancy some foods more than others.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Thank you siledre! It makes sense now. Your sexual orientation can be decided at birth, but your enviroment ultimatly influences what your going to like/dislike.
And why doesn't homosexuality fit here?
Give up?
Because homosexuals have managed to gain some acceptance.
Ultimately it comes down to what's accepted and what's not.
Good question, Coffee. "The jury is out" on whether homosexuality is genetic or not. Nobody really fucking knows what causes sexual orientation - and it may be a while until we do.
And ultimately - well, see above. It's quite possible that if the pedos marched and demanded acceptence, we'd be treating them just as "tolerantly" as we do homosexuals.
The Facts About "Ex-Gays"
"About 30 years ago, the religious right launched a campaign to convince the public that gay people could be "cured" by science and magically become heterosexual. Their thinking was that if they could prove that gay people can change, then there would be no reason to have laws protecting the civil rights of gay people.
The problem? The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say that this talk of science curing "ex-gays" is all bunk." [More...]
"About 30 years ago, the religious right launched a campaign to convince the public that gay people could be "cured" by science and magically become heterosexual. Their thinking was that if they could prove that gay people can change, then there would be no reason to have laws protecting the civil rights of gay people.
The problem? The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say that this talk of science curing "ex-gays" is all bunk." [More...]
Well at the same time there are fundamental differences. If a homosexual gets together with another homosexual, then rightly, who's to say they can't be together, what right does anyone have to say it's wrong, or stick their nose into the relationship. It's not harming anyone.
If a pedophile has a "relationship" (Or just relations) with a child, that's somebody's kid he's screwing, there sure as hell is a third party which has a right to want to watch out for these people and prevend these kinds of things: Parents, and rightly so! Aside from that a Pedo isn't going to try to form a long lasting relationship with a child, I can't imagine it's about anything more than just the sex. . . if anyone would like to make the case that a pedophile could aproach a child with the intent of having a lasting romantic relationship, well, ask yourself just what the hell does he think he's going to do when the kid grows up? Is he still going to be interested in another fully grown person who now has the ability to acctualy be an equil (or even the dominant member) in a relationship? No, of course not, that's the problem in the first place!
haha I love this quote (also from the same site, quoting someone else. . .) So in the end it's sort of like guys with something to prove either buy a harly, or turn gay? Man, that's like really deep. haha.
Ok, and one more quote from that site, just for those of you who aren't going to look at it (I'm sure there may be a few, hey I don't look at every link either) this is something that needs to go into the highlights:
Last edited:
Why assume that the genetic basis for wanting to sodomize is the same as the genetic basis for wanting to be sodomized? The former is presumably greater than the latter. So the genetic tendency is the really evil one, something that I suppose male homosexuals have confused people about, so why get suckered into thinking that somehow if male homosexuality be genetic it makes it less bad?
It's not the answers that matter so much but the questions. Why be very concerned with reforming male homosexuals at all? They aren't very numerous compared with females addicted to sodomy, many of them are sodomizers who probably aren't reformable (unless they are made to suffer for their behavior legally or from stigma) ,and not having so much of a genetic disposition to cleanliness, males addicted to being sodomized are I suppose more irreformable than females addicted to that, and males don't have the same sway over public sexual morals. Of course, if you know a likable male screwing up his life because he is addicted to sodomy, you'd feel different, but you can't efficiently save many people one-at-a-time.
Though there are doubtless a few exceptions, pscyhologists and psychiatrists have but little wisdom, IMAO. Not every field of study done at a university is worthy of respect. Those professions have mostly silly ideas. I'm glad that the drug pushers and the analysts tend to hate each other. Most psychological disturbances are anti-sodomy defenses, which I suppose is why the afore-mentioned professions are the favorite refuge of those who belittle anti-sodomy defenses. The mentally ill are the targets of discrimination who really deserve our pity and protection from psychologists and others. It's all a matter of definition, really. Who's more correct? Some Freudian psychologist in la-la land who thinks no addiction or depravity is worthy of concern or a loss of self-esteem, or a paranoid individual who feels that alll things like sodomy are heinous evils. At least mentally ill people are true to themselves, whereas the nonsense in the psychiatric and psychological professions comes from widely believed lies. I'll take a person with original delusions any time over a conformist fool. The respect for the white cloack of academia can be a dangerous thing. Most academics probably are wiser and smarter than typical people, but some of them are arrant self-serving fools. I mean just look at the diction of psychologists, using the word "abnormal" like that's something bad. A person with any decency should be insulted at being called "normal," but all too often the respect for the white cloak of psychology leads people to feel that a perfectly reasonable tendency to be nervous or a hard-ass is the result of some degradation, whereas it is totally the opposite, namely a protection from degradation.
Again, I refer people to the section of my book where I describe the reasons it is reasonable to view sodomy as evil:
http://members.aol.com/exactmorality/morality3.htm
It's not the answers that matter so much but the questions. Why be very concerned with reforming male homosexuals at all? They aren't very numerous compared with females addicted to sodomy, many of them are sodomizers who probably aren't reformable (unless they are made to suffer for their behavior legally or from stigma) ,and not having so much of a genetic disposition to cleanliness, males addicted to being sodomized are I suppose more irreformable than females addicted to that, and males don't have the same sway over public sexual morals. Of course, if you know a likable male screwing up his life because he is addicted to sodomy, you'd feel different, but you can't efficiently save many people one-at-a-time.
Though there are doubtless a few exceptions, pscyhologists and psychiatrists have but little wisdom, IMAO. Not every field of study done at a university is worthy of respect. Those professions have mostly silly ideas. I'm glad that the drug pushers and the analysts tend to hate each other. Most psychological disturbances are anti-sodomy defenses, which I suppose is why the afore-mentioned professions are the favorite refuge of those who belittle anti-sodomy defenses. The mentally ill are the targets of discrimination who really deserve our pity and protection from psychologists and others. It's all a matter of definition, really. Who's more correct? Some Freudian psychologist in la-la land who thinks no addiction or depravity is worthy of concern or a loss of self-esteem, or a paranoid individual who feels that alll things like sodomy are heinous evils. At least mentally ill people are true to themselves, whereas the nonsense in the psychiatric and psychological professions comes from widely believed lies. I'll take a person with original delusions any time over a conformist fool. The respect for the white cloack of academia can be a dangerous thing. Most academics probably are wiser and smarter than typical people, but some of them are arrant self-serving fools. I mean just look at the diction of psychologists, using the word "abnormal" like that's something bad. A person with any decency should be insulted at being called "normal," but all too often the respect for the white cloak of psychology leads people to feel that a perfectly reasonable tendency to be nervous or a hard-ass is the result of some degradation, whereas it is totally the opposite, namely a protection from degradation.
Again, I refer people to the section of my book where I describe the reasons it is reasonable to view sodomy as evil:
http://members.aol.com/exactmorality/morality3.htm
Now, what exactly makes you think that homosexual males are "addicted" to sodomy? In this model would you say that a heterosexual is addicted to vaginal sex? Had it also occured to you that all homosexuals do not engage in anal sex, as they don't find it to their liking? I would ask why exactly you think that such a thing would be evil, but you've given that link which I will read and comment on later.
What is your feeling of female homosexuality? Are they absolved of "wrong doing" because they do not engage in sodomy? Is sodomy the thing which makes homosexuals evil?
You're a very strange and dangerous person, your views are exactly those which I'd like to se destroyed in my life time.
What is your feeling of female homosexuality? Are they absolved of "wrong doing" because they do not engage in sodomy? Is sodomy the thing which makes homosexuals evil?
You're a very strange and dangerous person, your views are exactly those which I'd like to se destroyed in my life time.
Naturally it has occurred to me. Homosexuality as an evil is a red herring. It is sodomy that is evil--putting semen into the digestive system--something that most often has females as victims. As I mention in my book, if males want to masturbate in each other's belly-buttons, more power to them. And female-female intimacy is just great. But as for oral sodomy and rectal sodomy, those are evil regardless of the sex of the victim.
Are you suggesting that there is a correlation between being very strange and dangerous? Figures you would. Not that you aren't strange yourself, though. That strangeness ought to make you pause and wonder at your self-confidence. A screwed-up person is strange at his peril. Most people have evolved so that when they find themselves liking ugly disgusting behaviors, they step back and try to be more normal. I for one, though, am repulsed by ugly disgusting behaviors, so you see I'm rightly not quite one to roll around in conformity. Oh yes, it does matter what people as a whole believe. Not only because people as a whole comprise individual people, but because the enormous number of victimized individuals that (often correctly) feel overpowered by disgusting depravity look to people as a whole (as well as family) to give themselves a moral sense of decency. Wide is the path to destruction. . . . , but only because people of your sort have made it so, by trying to make depravity respectable.
So, after having read your link, it seems that your argument boils down to sodomy being wrong because seamen is addictive.
You readily admit that there is no chemical evidence that it contains any addictive substance, yet still we are supposed to believe you based on the idea that people keep having sex. . .
There are so many things wrong with your ideas that I'm having a very difficult time of trying to figure out where to start.
First, a few points which I simply don't understand.
So in your own opinion all sodomy is abuse? How can this be true, in a situation in which it is consensual? Were you aware that gay men often refer to themselves as either "tops" or "bottoms" when talking about personal sexual style, this of course referring which position they like to be in during anal sex. There are those who prefer to be a top and those who prefer to be a bottom, if you are trying to come at this with the idea that one member must be abused in a situation of anal sex you are very mistaken, it can be a very pleasurable experience for both involved (and if you do it right, there is no pain involved, either).
What kind of convoluted point are you trying to make here? You're saying that the snobbish wealthy don't like to think about anal sex? First off, so what if they didn't I don't see how this relates to anything else that you're trying to say. Second, what about wealthy homosexuals, or simply wealthy men who may enjoy sodomizing their ladie friends? I just don't get why you think there is some sort of barrier here, and what difference it would make even if it existed.
Haha, tell that to Ian McClellan (sp?) he's someone who seems to be doing fairly well for himself, and we can assume he engages in sodomy, though again we can't really say he's addicted, as it isn't an addiction. Also just from various pride rallies here in my home town, I know that just in Phoenix Arizona alone there are many wealthy homosexual business owners. I also have an old money classic snob friend, who happens to be a homosexual, and though he spends like a fiend to go on vacations around the world (never taking me with him, the bastard! hehe, only a little bitter) he still manages to be pretty thrifty. Anyway I'm just having trouble understanding why you think someone who engages regularly in sodomy can not hold on to money. . . is it really that expensive? It hasn't cost me anything so far. . . but then I don't pay for sex, is that what you're trying to get at, step? Because you know, prostitution is illegal, and I'm sure you'd be better off finding a girl who fancies you for yourself, and not just your willingness to pay for a night of pleasure.
Ok, this is just ridiculous, please back up these claims, what has lead you to believe that sodomy is a class thing? This isn't economics, this is bedroom behavior! Social status has nothing to do with it, who told you that only poor stupid people have anal sex?
That’s because there’s nothing at all to suggest that such a thing as sodomy addiction exists! Tell me, if it’s the seamen that’s actually addictive, then how is it that I myself quite enjoy sodomy, yet have never taken another man’s seamen in any orifice what so ever (I like to play it safe, thank you, condoms, and all that). Also, if seamen is addictive, why are you not making a case for oral sex addictions, or for women addicted to vaginal sex? Why is it only anal sex which produces an addiction? By your logic any sex with a male could be addictive, and as such evil in your own opinion, so, are lesbians the only sane and healthy sexual partners in the world?
Well yes it may but it doesn’t. Please name your own observations on this particular topic.
Haha, of course, and TV would never lie to you, would it? Will&Grace is certainly the best source of information regarding homosexuals, isn’t it? I’ll tell you what, though, you’re right, there are often a dominant and a submissive member in a homosexual relationship, though this is not always the case. On another note, if you look at a heterosexual relationship the woman is often submissive to the man, is this wrong and evil, too? Is this shocking evidence the addictive quality of male seamen addicting poor helpless females?
Haha, well I won’t even ask the question of what kind of movies exactly you are talking about, here, because I’m sure we all know the answer to that. How does acting submissive imply addiction? I simply don’t understand that, submission is not a behavior associated with addiction. Perhaps the woman is not acting submissive in a way that relates to addiction, but submissive in a way that corresponds to the fact that she has a very large cock in her ass.
I’ll leave laughing at the idea of religious people being free of addiction to Xev and others, who I believe will, in quite the same manner that I do, feel that this statement is completely hilarious. The point that I would like to make is the fact that this statement doesn’t support your argument. How is it that a bunch of people hating sodomy based on the grounds of “I don’t know why I don’t like it, but I do” support any argument against sodomy? Which side are you on again? I’m tempted to just ask you if you are being sarcastic with all of this, because if so I must commend you on maintaining a consistently absurd tone for so long, it’s quite a feat!
Anyway, seeing how as I only have a limited time to write all of this out, and you go on babbling for pages and pages that I don’t have the time to read right now, I’ll leave it at that and get back to you.
I hope you’ll answer the questions that I have asked you, and present any more information which may support your rather ridiculous argument, I need a good laugh.
You readily admit that there is no chemical evidence that it contains any addictive substance, yet still we are supposed to believe you based on the idea that people keep having sex. . .
There are so many things wrong with your ideas that I'm having a very difficult time of trying to figure out where to start.
First, a few points which I simply don't understand.
So in your own opinion all sodomy is abuse? How can this be true, in a situation in which it is consensual? Were you aware that gay men often refer to themselves as either "tops" or "bottoms" when talking about personal sexual style, this of course referring which position they like to be in during anal sex. There are those who prefer to be a top and those who prefer to be a bottom, if you are trying to come at this with the idea that one member must be abused in a situation of anal sex you are very mistaken, it can be a very pleasurable experience for both involved (and if you do it right, there is no pain involved, either).
What kind of convoluted point are you trying to make here? You're saying that the snobbish wealthy don't like to think about anal sex? First off, so what if they didn't I don't see how this relates to anything else that you're trying to say. Second, what about wealthy homosexuals, or simply wealthy men who may enjoy sodomizing their ladie friends? I just don't get why you think there is some sort of barrier here, and what difference it would make even if it existed.
Haha, tell that to Ian McClellan (sp?) he's someone who seems to be doing fairly well for himself, and we can assume he engages in sodomy, though again we can't really say he's addicted, as it isn't an addiction. Also just from various pride rallies here in my home town, I know that just in Phoenix Arizona alone there are many wealthy homosexual business owners. I also have an old money classic snob friend, who happens to be a homosexual, and though he spends like a fiend to go on vacations around the world (never taking me with him, the bastard! hehe, only a little bitter) he still manages to be pretty thrifty. Anyway I'm just having trouble understanding why you think someone who engages regularly in sodomy can not hold on to money. . . is it really that expensive? It hasn't cost me anything so far. . . but then I don't pay for sex, is that what you're trying to get at, step? Because you know, prostitution is illegal, and I'm sure you'd be better off finding a girl who fancies you for yourself, and not just your willingness to pay for a night of pleasure.
Ok, this is just ridiculous, please back up these claims, what has lead you to believe that sodomy is a class thing? This isn't economics, this is bedroom behavior! Social status has nothing to do with it, who told you that only poor stupid people have anal sex?
That’s because there’s nothing at all to suggest that such a thing as sodomy addiction exists! Tell me, if it’s the seamen that’s actually addictive, then how is it that I myself quite enjoy sodomy, yet have never taken another man’s seamen in any orifice what so ever (I like to play it safe, thank you, condoms, and all that). Also, if seamen is addictive, why are you not making a case for oral sex addictions, or for women addicted to vaginal sex? Why is it only anal sex which produces an addiction? By your logic any sex with a male could be addictive, and as such evil in your own opinion, so, are lesbians the only sane and healthy sexual partners in the world?
Well yes it may but it doesn’t. Please name your own observations on this particular topic.
Haha, of course, and TV would never lie to you, would it? Will&Grace is certainly the best source of information regarding homosexuals, isn’t it? I’ll tell you what, though, you’re right, there are often a dominant and a submissive member in a homosexual relationship, though this is not always the case. On another note, if you look at a heterosexual relationship the woman is often submissive to the man, is this wrong and evil, too? Is this shocking evidence the addictive quality of male seamen addicting poor helpless females?
Haha, well I won’t even ask the question of what kind of movies exactly you are talking about, here, because I’m sure we all know the answer to that. How does acting submissive imply addiction? I simply don’t understand that, submission is not a behavior associated with addiction. Perhaps the woman is not acting submissive in a way that relates to addiction, but submissive in a way that corresponds to the fact that she has a very large cock in her ass.
I’ll leave laughing at the idea of religious people being free of addiction to Xev and others, who I believe will, in quite the same manner that I do, feel that this statement is completely hilarious. The point that I would like to make is the fact that this statement doesn’t support your argument. How is it that a bunch of people hating sodomy based on the grounds of “I don’t know why I don’t like it, but I do” support any argument against sodomy? Which side are you on again? I’m tempted to just ask you if you are being sarcastic with all of this, because if so I must commend you on maintaining a consistently absurd tone for so long, it’s quite a feat!
Anyway, seeing how as I only have a limited time to write all of this out, and you go on babbling for pages and pages that I don’t have the time to read right now, I’ll leave it at that and get back to you.
I hope you’ll answer the questions that I have asked you, and present any more information which may support your rather ridiculous argument, I need a good laugh.
