[Norton1]

(Original post by ufo2012)
It is going into the hole which it was not originally intended to be going into.

Not sure about that.

The gays are known for having excellent aim. And it's not like there's anything else down there they might have originally been going for.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Depends how 'scientific' you are speaking of...

If you referring to medically ... has there ever been a psychiatric analysis of mental health issues suffered by homosexuals and if so what were the results? (a summary of)

Yes, but you know this already. This gives a nice summary of why homosexuality is not a psychopathology amongst other things - like why attempting to change it is a risk for psychopathology.

(Original post by ufo2012)
It is going into the hole which it was not originally intended to be going into.

Unless you wish to invoke god, then I can say exactly the same thing about vaginal sex.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Yes, but you know this already. This gives a nice summary of why homosexuality is not a psychopathology amongst other things - like why attempting to change it is a risk for psychopathology.

I knew this already, how? I have never seen this document before.

"Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation"

But it doesn't look like what I was asking for - this seems to be about those wishing to change their sexual orientation or going through that process?

[mmmpie]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I knew this already, how? I have never seen this document before.

"Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation"

But it doesn't look like what I was asking for - this seems to be about those wishing to change their sexual orientation or going through that process?

You should know this already, because we've had this conversation in the past on other threads.

Read the abstract, not just the title. It says...

the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity

If you read the full report - and it's quite heavy going in places - it covers a lot of background about sexuality. Including backing up the above with quite a lot of detail.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by NB_ide)
OP makes some valid points - a lot of the arguments "for" homosexuality inevitably also support various other things that we absolutely don't tolerate and continue to find inexplicably revolting.

Personally I don't give a **** about homo sex or homos, but trying to actively justify it and present it as a good, "natural", normal thing never works and always leads to problems/contradictions such as the OP highlighted, which are usually resolved by supporters simply screaming angrily about homophobia.

The only time I've ever seen someone mention that homosexuality is natural is as a part of a two part defence to the argument 'homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural'.

Firstly, you cannot say that something is wrong because it is unnatural - to do so is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. This is shown in your post when you should about things we find revolting - eating our young etc. would be natural in some species that we share common ancestors with, but it doesn't make it right.
The point about homosexuality being natural is just another part of the defence of this argument. Even if you could say that natural things were good and unnatural things were bad - which you can't - then homosexuality would fall under your own definition of good, as it is in fact natural.

[Crazykid1]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
This is a widely debated issue in society and I believe open discussion should be encouraged to find an eventual solution to the problem. It is my intention to impartially assess some of the negative aspects of homosexuality in society in a structured and logical way.

Firstly we must acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence as of yet whether homosexuality is a choice or not, this is backed up by the APA who many believe to be the authority on these matters. The logical thing to do here is assess both cases.

If we are to say one is homosexual not through choice, then this also applies to paedophilia as many people argue that is also without choice. Many people will immediately resort to a weak counter argument saying they cannot be compared because they are not the 'same'. Of course these definitions change over time with a degree of subjectivity. But they can be compared and I quote the following from Wikipedia with a cited source.



Since they can be compared, it can be observed the contradictory nature in the which both cases are treated. Paedophiles are victimised, criminalised and slandered by society (regardless if they act upon their sexual desires). Why the difference and the double standards? We know it may cause the child harm, but why should a paedophile who is not what he/she is through choice be traumatised?

Many people argue homosexuality is to be accepted because it occurs in nature. That is true, some species do engage in homosexual activities. However in nature we can see things like paedophilia, incest and eating their young occur. Does this justify humans eating their babies or having sexual relations with their family members?

We must also examine that homosexuals are often justified by saying two people in a relationship are not harming anyone therefore why question it. This is no justification as we look at, for example, a homosexual incestuous relationship (e.g. a father and a son engaging in a sexual relationship) we can again apply the same argument saying two individuals are not harming anyone etc however we know that any incestuous homosexual relationship is illegal in this country so why the double standards? A homosexual incestuous relationship will adversely affect at most the amount of people that a homosexual relationship would affect. This is contradictory.

Homo sapiens are defined as species and the definition for a species is:



If such a thing exists, the homosexual gene is directly contradicting this definition.

Furthermore if we are to examine the case that homosexuality is not by choice. Then we can define it as a negative genetic mutation in nature as it prevents one from finding a person of the opposite sex attractive and just like other illnesses (such as a person being born with deformed sexual organs) these negative genes must be addressed by doctors and researchers to preserve continuity.

I welcome discussion and aim to respond points which challenge mine. If we do not discuss such matters openly in a civilised manner, we will remain constant and fail to progress.

I worry for our society's future after reading a post like this. Muppet.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by mmmpie)
You should know this already, because we've had this conversation in the past on other threads.

Read the abstract, not just the title. It says...

If you read the full report - and it's quite heavy going in places - it covers a lot of background about sexuality. Including backing up the above with quite a lot of detail.

I don't ever remember discussing this topic with you. Especially not regarding this report you have produced.

I had a look through some and read some parts, but still don't think it's directly relevant (at least not what I can see).

I'm wanting to read something that gives information on homosexuals with mental health issues after they have been living with homosexuality for some time (if such information exists).

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I'm wanting to read something that gives information on homosexuals with mental health issues after they have been living with homosexuality for some time (if such information exists).

I don't know if there does exist statistics for the prevalence of mental illness in homosexual populations, but even if they did exist and even if the statistics were higher in homosexuals than in the general population - you still wouldn't be able to say that they were mentally ill because they were homosexual.
I don't know if this is what you were getting at, but I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't work.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I don't ever remember discussing this topic with you. Especially not regarding this report you have produced.

I had a look through some and read some parts, but still don't think it's directly relevant (at least not what I can see).

I'm wanting to read something that gives information on homosexuals with mental health issues after they have been living with homosexuality for some time (if such information exists).

What you're asking for is actually quite old - most of these questions were answered twenty years or more ago. However, the Royal College of Psychaiatrists and American Psychological Association are agreed that homosexuality is not itself pathological. Both those are FAQs with citations, but given who they're FAQs by they should suffice. If you fancy something more technical I'm sure NYU or RandZul can recommend something - unlike them I don't study psychology.

Define 'living with homosexuality for some time'? I could have met that when I was twelve.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I don't know if there does exist statistics for the prevalence of mental illness in homosexual populations, but even if they did exist and even if the statistics were higher in homosexuals than in the general population - you still wouldn't be able to say that they were mentally ill because they were homosexual.
I don't know if this is what you were getting at, but I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't work.

I didn't actually think of that, but no I wasn't going to come up with that.

I purely want to read about it out of interest to see if there are even any properly documented issues that have come out of it. I am sure there are some available somewhere.

Whether it is a mental illness to those arguing any points regarding it or not is irrelevant, as that is subjective based on who exactly is looking at it (kinda like refer back what tufc posted and got slated for).

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I didn't actually think of that, but no I wasn't going to come up with that.

I purely want to read about it out of interest to see if there are even any properly documented issues that have come out of it. I am sure there are some available somewhere.

Whether it is a mental illness to those arguing any points regarding it or not is irrelevant, as that is subjective based on who exactly is looking at it (kinda like refer back what tufc posted and got slated for).

I apologise for misunderstanding you then.

Whether it is a mental illness or not is not subjective, it is defined by psychologists.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I apologise for misunderstanding you then.

Whether it is a mental illness or not is not subjective, it is defined by psychologists.

It is not defined by psychologists per se, it was agreed upon by majority vote. A vote can go either way.

There is little point therefore in debating that, as how can we debate something that was based only on the opinion of psychologists?

Since it was removed from the DSM by majority vote, for the average person that then makes it purely subjective.

Then again, in the same breath that could make the entire DSM subjective.

[derangedyoshi]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Depends how 'scientific' you are speaking of...

If you referring to medically ... has there ever been a psychiatric analysis of mental health issues suffered by homosexuals and if so what were the results? (a summary of)

If such a study showed that gay people were more prone to depression or something like that, one might have to question whether it was because they had terrible unnatural gay sex, or whether it was because society still discriminates against gay people. In particular, the majority of openly gay teenagers are bullied at school even in non-denominational schools, and it's a big majority in faith schools. I'd say that's more mentally scarring than engaging in safe consensual sex with someone you love.

(Original post by Norton1)
Not sure about that.

The gays are known for having excellent aim. And it's not like there's anything else down there they might have originally been going for.

This made me giggle :P

[Dinnes]

(Original post by ufo2012)
That could be debatable - it could be said that the homosexual is harming themselves and the other person emotionally by undertaking sexually deviant behaviour.

Then it's their decision, the two of them. Not someone sitting in their ivory tower writing death lists.

And what's wrong about deviant?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by derangedyoshi)
If such a study showed that gay people were more prone to depression or something like that, one might have to question whether it was because they had terrible unnatural gay sex, or whether it was because society still discriminates against gay people. In particular, the majority of openly gay teenagers are bullied at school even in non-denominational schools, and it's a big majority in faith schools. I'd say that's more mentally scarring than engaging in safe consensual sex with someone you love.

Yes but such a study would bring this out and the reasons for it.

(Original post by Dinnes)
Then it's their decision, the two of them. Not someone sitting in their ivory tower writing death lists.

And what's wrong about deviant?

Definitely, it's their decision. Who is writing these death lists you talk of though?

Sexual deviance, as it has become commonly known, is generally not regarded as a positive trait.

Even saying the two words together raise eyebrows.

[King Kebab]

Oh dear. The OP sinks to a new low.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Yes but such a study would bring this out and the reasons for it.

Studies have been on how homosexuality affects mental health. Much of the research shows that homosexuals are more prone to mental health problems such as depression (this isn't only for teens), but conclude in almost every case that it is due to outside factors like stigmatization, and discrimination, etc. Only organizations like NARTH like to say otherwise.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/hig...r-homosexuals/

Definitely, it's their decision. Who is writing these death lists you talk of though?

Sexual deviance, as it has become commonly known, is generally not regarded as a positive trait.

Even saying the two words together raise eyebrows.

The question though is why? What makes sexual deviance a negative thing? There doesn't seem to be a reason why sexual deviance, in general, is 'bad', so it must be judged case by case, so the question arises what makes homosexuality 'bad'?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Studies have been on how homosexuality affects mental health. Much of the research shows that homosexuals are more prone to mental health problems such as depression (this isn't only for teens), but conclude in almost every case that it is due to outside factors like stigmatization, and discrimination, etc. Only organizations like NARTH like to say otherwise.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/hig...r-homosexuals/

That is good reading and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, however:

Professor Michael King and his team at University College London, UK, carried out a review of 28 papers on the subject. All were published between 1966 and 2005, and included a total of 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 homosexual people.

Their analysis revealed twice the rate of suicide attempts among lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The risks of depression and anxiety disorders were at least one and a half times higher, as was alcohol and other substance abuse.

214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 homosexual people ?!

Not exactly a fair 'cross-section' of society polled there to calculate the statistics.

I wonder how they balanced (or maybe did not balance) their percentages based on the fact that there were nearly 18 times as many heterosexuals to homosexuals in this?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
That is good reading and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, however:

Professor Michael King and his team at University College London, UK, carried out a review of 28 papers on the subject. All were published between 1966 and 2005, and included a total of 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 homosexual people.

Their analysis revealed twice the rate of suicide attempts among lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The risks of depression and anxiety disorders were at least one and a half times higher, as was alcohol and other substance abuse.

214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 homosexual people ?!

Not exactly a fair 'cross-section' of society polled there to calculate the statistics.

I wonder how they balanced (or maybe did not balance) their percentages based on the fact that there were nearly 18 times as many heterosexuals to homosexuals in this?

Well that is a total it could have been broken up into very reasonably balanced numbers for the papers. And I don't remember where they were published but if they were in a peer reviewed magazine then I'm sure they were balanced.

EDIT: I checked and they were in peer-reviewed journals, meaning if they weren't balanced they would not have been published or even if they were balanced incorrectly.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
...Only organizations like NARTH like to say otherwise...

NARTH certainly have some interesting reading.

Take for example this article:
“Born Gay, No Change Possible” Myths Never Substantiated by Researchers, Yet Professionals Seem Unaware

and another interesting one about children of homosexuals