[ufo2012]

Apart from the fact it is off-topic I see no benefit in discussing the acceptability of paedophilia and the possibility of child molestation - I think I previously touched on it before anyway - if that is bigoted, so be it.

At present it is unacceptable to society and I sincerely hope it remains that way forever.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by filmore)
So homosexuality is not a disorder? Is it perfectly in order for a human being not to experience desire to reproduce at a certain age?

I don't know what planet you've been living on, but your ignorance is showing.

(1) Not everyone, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation has a desire to reproduce.

(2) Being a certain sexual orientation does not make one want to reproduce; being a certain sexual orientation does not make one not want to reproduce. In fact, homosexual people can and do reproduce.

(Original post by filmore)
Of course it is a disorder, and a mental one too (not in legal classification though).

Is it? You're a qualified psychological expert and you found this out all by yourself?

No, I didn't think so.

A mental disorder is something which causes mental distress, harm or dysfunction. Homosexuality causes none of these. References: the hundreds of studies done on human sexuality since the 1950's.

(Original post by filmore)
It is a different matter that being born homosexual or with four fingers or with one kidney is not considered immoral because there is no threat to society.
Glorifying homosexuality, promoting homosexual lifestyle, holding a gay parade led by the Mayor fo London - completely immoral.

You apparently don't even understand ethics.

(1) You cannot promote a homosexual lifestyle; people don't just decide "Oh! I'm going to be homosexual!"
(2) Homosexuality is not glorified. Stop being ignorant.
(3) PRIDE is held so that people can come together to form a community; so that they know that there other people out there just like them; so that people do not discriminate against them; etc; etc; etc.

None of these things are 'immoral'. For something to be immoral it has to be an action which either violates someone's rights (homosexuality does not); or it has to cause someone harm (it does not).

So please, take your blatant, uneducated, clearly uninformed ignorance elsewhere.

[filmore]

[QUOTE=NYU2012;38670510]
(1) Not everyone, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation has a desire to reproduce.

Reproduction is a mechanism of preservation of a species, simple as that. Not to have a desire to reproduce is abnormal because it signifies the end of a species.

(2) Being a certain sexual orientation does not make one want to reproduce; being a certain sexual orientation does not make one not want to reproduce. In fact, homosexual people can and do reproduce.

You are confusing reproduction with the desire to own (buy, steal) a child. Not the same thing.
Besides, it is not correct to say that homosexual people reproduce. Homosexuality is not hereditary. This disorder is not passed on to the next generation at a genetic level.

A mental disorder is something which causes mental distress, harm or dysfunction. Homosexuality causes none of these. References: the hundreds of studies done on human sexuality since the 1950's.

On dysfunction, see above. If you want to understand the issue, try something less dramatic. Think of a small minority of people who are born without self-preservation instinct.


(1) You cannot promote a homosexual lifestyle; people don't just decide "Oh! I'm going to be homosexual!"
Now, if you are honest with yourself, are you absolutely, 100 per cent sure? We pretend that we do not know whether you can change someones sexual preferences during their formative years. That's the PC thing to say at the moment.
But we do know that some people are born without self-presvation mechanism, and some are trained. Think of suicide bombers.

(2) Homosexuality is not glorified. Stop being ignorant.
It's given rise to a big business. Business requires promotion, glorification. Film industry for example.

(3) PRIDE is held so that people can come together to form a community; so that they know that there other people out there just like them; so that people do not discriminate against them; etc; etc; etc.

OK. Have you ever been to a PRIDE? I have. Nothing to do with forming a community. How about having a PRIDE for drug addicts then?

QUOTE]

I notice lots of labelling behavour in your post. Hmm...

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by filmore)
Reproduction is a mechanism of preservation of a species, simple as that. Not to have a desire to reproduce is abnormal because it signifies the end of a species.

I'm not gay. I don't want kids.

You are confusing reproduction with the desire to own (buy, steal) a child. Not the same thing.
Besides, it is not correct to say that homosexual people reproduce. Homosexuality is not hereditary. This disorder is not passed on to the next generation at a genetic level.

Homosexual people do reproduce. I know a lesbian woman with her own biological children.
There is evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality, evidenced by twin studies.

On dysfunction, see above. If you want to understand the issue, try something less dramatic. Think of a small minority of people who are born without self-preservation instinct.

I'm looking above, I'm seeing nothing.
Homosexuality it in no way comparable to not having a self preservation instinct.

Now, if you are honest with yourself, are you absolutely, 100 per cent sure? We pretend that we do not know whether you can change someones sexual preferences during their formative years. That's the PC thing to say at the moment.
But we do know that some people are born without self-presvation mechanism, and some are trained. Think of suicide bombers.

We can't change someone's sexual orientation. Even the guy who invented anti-gay therapies says we can't.
Still not comparable to a lack of self-preservation mechanism. Also, suicide bombers believe their cause is more important than their life so that's also not comparable.

It's given rise to a big business. Business requires promotion, glorification. Film industry for example.

I fail to see the business.
Homosexuality is not glorified. People are solely intending to normalise it. As that's what it is.

OK. Have you ever been to a PRIDE? I have. Nothing to do with forming a community. How about having a PRIDE for drug addicts then?

I have, and that's what it was.
And drug addicts can be changed, why do they need pride? Please try and get examples that make sense.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I think you need to learn how to comprehend words properly. If a lifestyle is 'mentally disturbed' it is not a mental illness but is just 'disturbed' or abnormal. Now you also failed to read the first part where it only said the lifestyle in its most extreme form. So homosexuality in and of itself is not, only a lifestyle in its extreme form would qualify. This is all of course in addition to the fact that somehow a lifestyle is a mental 'disorder' as you claim. That doesn't even make sense.



Read again. You seem to have selective attention. You bolded psychiatric problems. It says homosexuals have a greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems. Not that homosexuality is one.

'

Again notice how the answer to the question wasn't a yes? I will say it again. READ WHAT YOU SOURCE. This is all in addition to the fact that this man has a very obvious bias against homosexuals, has no training or relevant experience in psychology, and hasn't presented any valid criticisms of actual studies. And of course this paper wasn't peer reviewed so it is not credible in the slightest.



You think that is what peer review is? This explains so much about you. You don't even know what real peer review is or what makes something credible. Lets note that if I do a google search for peer review on that 'journal' it comes up with tons of criticisms that it is not peer reviewed. Not too mention that it doesn't even show up on google scholar, which means it isn't in any database as an actual journal because it can't count as one.



Where have any of us lied? You have shown yourself to be an absolute idiot though.



Please show me where my 'bias' is. Because so far I haven't stated anything that isn't true or backed by research. I also fail to see how my avatar shows this... And just to clarify being homosexual does not make one inherently biased on homosexual issue.



Its not really toying with semantics as you know using what was actually said.



Pedophilia is a normal cognitive function (as should be reflected in the upcoming DSM) but the act of pedophilia can cause harm and therefore should not be allowed. This isn't really all that difficult.

NARTH is peer-reviewed. You can look at the academics online who overview their journals. Do you have any real evidence homosexuality is normal? So far all you are doing is posting ad hominems in a desperate attempt to discredit NARTH. NYU2012 is also a pseudo-intellectual with his parroted line to anyone who doesn't agree with him: ''you're not a qualified psychological expert'', this is despite the fact he holds no credentials whatsoever.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
It's not really a claim. They are factually incorrect.



Legitimate to anyone? Logically it isn't really something that is a disorder (talking about the desire), its the action that causes harm and should be discouraged.



Because the desire itself isn't harmful. The act should not be acceptable as it is likely to cause harm to the child, but merely the desire is not.




You have yet to provide any valid reasons. And while thats nice that you are disgusted there is no logic behind it. You have really no reason to be disgusted.

Most of this post is just trolling for a responce.

I highly doubt in the real world you say what you post here.

Go up to a parent in real life and say the filth what you have posted here - that paedophilia is normal. You wouldn't last standing for one minute.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
NARTH is peer-reviewed. You can look at the academics online who overview their journals. Do you have any real evidence homosexuality is normal? So far all you are doing is posting ad hominems in a desperate attempt to discredit NARTH. NYU2012 is also a pseudo-intellectual with his parroted line to anyone who doesn't agree with him: ''you're not a qualified psychological expert'', this is despite the fact he holds no credentials whatsoever.

I've actually studied psychology, genius. My bachelor's degree actually has the word 'psychology' on it.

NARTH is not peer-reviewed; for example, the 'research' which wasn't even really research which you attempted for put forward as 'evidence', which didn't even support your claims, was not a peer-reviewed piece.

Real evidence that homosexuality is normal? I don't know the literally hundreds of studies conducted on human sexual behavior since the 1950's? Do you actually have any knowledge of this subject at all?

[.eXe]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
~

(Original post by NYU2012)
~

NARTH is not a legitimate source for anything.

Stop this useless debate now because every other post is filled with basically just insults.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by NYU2012)
I've actually studied psychology, genius. My bachelor's degree actually has the word 'psychology' on it.

NARTH is not peer-reviewed; for example, the 'research' which wasn't even really research which you attempted for put forward as 'evidence', which didn't even support your claims, was not a peer-reviewed piece.

Real evidence that homosexuality is normal? I don't know the literally hundreds of studies conducted on human sexual behavior since the 1950's? Do you actually have any knowledge of this subject at all?

Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association up to 1973. Even when it was removed for political correctness, most leading authorities objected. Still today there are plenty of psychologists and psychiatrists who regard it to be a mental illness or disorder. Your repeated ''1950's'' claim is completely bogus, as are your credentials.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association up to 1973. Even when it was removed for political correctness, most leading authorities objected. Still today there are plenty of psychologists and psychiatrists who regard it to be a mental illness or disorder. Your repeated ''1950's'' claim is completely bogus, as are your credentials.

Just because it was considered an illness doesn't mean it was right. When they determined that the information was wrong they changed it. Medicine can get it wrong too. End of story.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association up to 1973. Even when it was removed for political correctness, most leading authorities objected. Still today there are plenty of psychologists and psychiatrists who regard it to be a mental illness or disorder. Your repeated ''1950's'' claim is completely bogus, as are your credentials.

But your not-degree-in-psychology somehow means you're qualified? Right
I don't think you have room to talk about who has credentials here. Sex and Gender is something I study; I study the philosophy, politics, psychology and sociology behind and of sex and gender; I've also guest lectured, here at New York University (one of the world's leading institutions for the study of sex and gender), on the intersectionality between sex and gender with identity, society, law and identity politics; as well as what exactly sex and gender are, their limits, etc. And I've been invited to return to lecture again in the Fall, Spring and Summer terms. If you want to talk 'who has the best credentials here' you lose that argument by a long shot. So really, don't bring up credentials because, in fact, I know what I'm talking about.

My repeated "1950s" claim isn't bogus. You clearly need to go back and actually take the time to study this subject because you obviously know nothing about it. The study of human sexuality, gender, etc. started in the 1950s, largely with Money's work; in the 1970's Foucault made another push in the study of sexuality. But, since the 1950s, research has been done by psychologists and sociologists on the topic of human sexuality.

In the 1970's the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations had a preponderance of evidence to change homosexuality from a mental disorder to not -- not due to political pressure; the LGBTQ movement had minimal traction during the early 1970's (Stonewall only happened in 1969) and, homosexuality was not entirely removed from categories of mental illness in the 1970's. (it was merely reclassified)

There are not "plenty of psychologists and psychiatrists who regard it as a mental disorder".... I have no idea where you get these supposed figures from. No Psychiatric or Psychological Association in the US, Canada, UK, etc. etc. (Those centers of leading psychological research) classify homosexuality as a mental disorder; in fact, in very few countries is it considered a 'mental disorder' since the DSM and ICD do not list it as such. To this day "most leading authorities" do not object; and there's a HUGE preponderance of evidence which indicates that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Does homosexuality cause psychological distress?
No.

Does homosexuality cause psychological harm?
No.

Does homosexuality cause dysfunction?
No.

Therefore, it is not a mental illness. Not that hard to comprehend.

And saying that "homosexuality is a mental disorder because it goes against evolutionary biology!" is, at best, a crap argument. (1) Homosexuals can and do reproduce; being homosexual does not make one infertile or not want to have babies; (2) Not wanting children is not a mental disorder; There are heterosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and homosexuals (as well as pansexuals, which is an interesting combination of sexual orientation and gender preferences) who do not want children. (3) To say that anyone or anything which causes a desire or impediment to not reproduce is against evolutionary biology is to try to simplify a very complex phenomenon. If every single human ever followed your "everyone must reproduce because evolutionary biology says so!" the world would be overpopulated; we would expend all of our natural resources and most, or all, of us would die off -- clearly not good for the continuation of the species. For all you know, there are evolutionary advantages to some people not wanting children. But, as was indicated above, not wanting children is not a mental disorder and since some homosexuals do want children, clearly it cannot be a mental disorder.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by filmore)
Reproduction is a mechanism of preservation of a species, simple as that. Not to have a desire to reproduce is abnormal because it signifies the end of a species.

That's only if everyone has a desire to not reproduce; the human species does not currently have that problem.

Homosexuals do have a desire to reproduce and some, in fact, do. A desire to not reproduce is not limited to any particular sexual orientation.

And, since the earth has limited natural resources, it could, in fact, be evolutionarily advantageous for not every human on the planet to reproduce, as that would lead to very a quick expungement of natural resources.

(Original post by filmore)
You are confusing reproduction with the desire to own (buy, steal) a child. Not the same thing.

No, I am not confusing anything. It is you who either has intentionally mischaracterized or misunderstands this subject.

Homosexual individuals can and do naturally reproduce.

(Original post by filmore)
Besides, it is not correct to say that homosexual people reproduce.

Yes, in fact it is. Homosexuals people do have children who are biologically related to them; thereby it is accurate to say that they reproduce.

(Original post by filmore)
Homosexuality is not hereditary. This disorder is not passed on to the next generation at a genetic level.

Actually, twin studies and sibling studies have indicated that the contraction of homosexuality is beyond a statistical level wherein genes play no role; evidence indicates that there has to be at least some aspects of human sexuality that is, in fact, genetic.

(Original post by filmore)
On dysfunction, see above. If you want to understand the issue, try something less dramatic. Think of a small minority of people who are born without self-preservation instinct.

It's not dysfunctional. Nowhere in all of psychology does it say "HUMANS MUST REPRODUCE ANYONE WHO DOES NOT OR HAS NO DESIRE TO HAS A MENTAL DISORDER".

There's no reason to indicate that it is dysfunctional either.

And, of course, there are homosexual people who can and do reproduce, so clearly homosexuality does not meet your criteria of 'dysfunction'.

(Original post by filmore)
Now, if you are honest with yourself, are you absolutely, 100 per cent sure? We pretend that we do not know whether you can change someones sexual preferences during their formative years. That's the PC thing to say at the moment.
But we do know that some people are born without self-presvation mechanism, and some are trained. Think of suicide bombers.

Yes, I am. You cannot change one's sexual orientation, as all evidence has clearly indicated.

(Original post by filmore)
It's given rise to a big business. Business requires promotion, glorification. Film industry for example.

That doesn't mean it's being 'glorified'. That merely means that people support LGBTQ rights; or they support LGBTQ people in film. Not that their sexual orientation is 'glorified'.

(Original post by filmore)
OK. Have you ever been to a PRIDE? I have. Nothing to do with forming a community. How about having a PRIDE for drug addicts then?

In fact, I have. And yes, in fact, the point is to form a community; sense of belonging; see people similar to oneself; etc. It brings a particular group of people together for a day, and it accomplishes just that whether or not you recognize it; welcome to identity politics.

Drug addicts have no relevance to members of the LGBTQ community.

[filmore]

(Original post by NYU2012)
It's not dysfunctional. Nowhere in all of psychology does it say ...

Your point of view appreciated. If we associate the term "functionalty" with the current needs of western society and stay within the framework of western psychology then you are spot on. I am looking for a somewhat more universal interpretation.
Of course the DSM is likely to change if the wave of "christian indignation" hits the debate and the new President takes a somewhat different view of the Church. We shall see.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by filmore)
Your point of view appreciated. If we associate the term "functionalty" with what the people who've studied this and know a hell of a lot more than me say, then you are spot on. I am looking to contradict them because I think I know better.

Fixed that for you.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Most of this post is just trolling for a responce.

I highly doubt in the real world you say what you post here.

Go up to a parent in real life and say the filth what you have posted here - that paedophilia is normal. You wouldn't last standing for one minute.

Actually that post was called a critique of your arguments and showing that they were flawed thereby invalidating them.

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
NARTH is peer-reviewed. You can look at the academics online who overview their journals. Do you have any real evidence homosexuality is normal? So far all you are doing is posting ad hominems in a desperate attempt to discredit NARTH. NYU2012 is also a pseudo-intellectual with his parroted line to anyone who doesn't agree with him: ''you're not a qualified psychological expert'', this is despite the fact he holds no credentials whatsoever.

NARTH is not peer-reviewed. Do you even know what the standards of peer review are? The papers need to be submitted to experts in the same field as the paper/study being published. Seeing as NARTH is not filled with experts in the field it cannot be considered peer reviewed.

Can you link me to the list of 'academics' who overview the journals? I can't find it anywhere.

As for evidence of homosexuality being normal please just do a basic google scholar search and you will have hundreds of results. Or go to the APA they have a paper that cites lots of research.

[Gremlins]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Not at all true.

''A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed'' (Whitehead, 2004).

Whitehead does not say homosexuals are merely at a greater risk of developing mental disorders, but that the homosexual way of life is mentally disturbed (a disorder) itself. Instead of actually reading the article, you and NYU2012 are just toying with semantics and distorting what it actually says.

And? What he's basically saying is that basing your identity off your sexual exploits is mentally disturbed (although I don't agree with his language, I am inclined to agree that it's not the healthiest behaviour) and that the 'homosexual lifestyle' in its 'extreme form' leads to this. So yeh, gay people who go around shagging lots of other gay people and let it form a major part of their personality probably aren't the most psychologically healthy of people. And yes, there is a part of the gay community that goes around doing that. There's also parts of the straight community that do the same thing. Just go on unilad or truelad or read playboy and you'll see exactly the same kind of processes going on only with straight people. Notice how ridiculously qualified the language in that quote is - try as he might, even Whitehead can't properly bash the gays without being so intellectually dishonest that his article would be instantly rejected out of hand by everyone, rather than just people with basic reading comprehension

[ufo2012]

(Original post by filmore)
Of course the DSM is likely to change if the wave of "christian indignation" hits the debate and the new President takes a somewhat different view of the Church. We shall see.

Can you further explain what you mean by this?

[filmore]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Fixed that for you.

I believe you should be more careful with altering other people's original posts.

[HDBrowne]

(Original post by tufc)
Yes, including Ted Bundy, Myra Hindley and Gary Glitter.



Me.

Ok then

Being Straight is unnatural

proof?

Jeremy Kyle show.

people from Towie?

people on FOX News in the US?

Jack the Ripper

Peter Sutcliffe (can't spell his last name and I really don't care to)

Ian Huntley

I could go on...

[CJKay]

(Original post by Hewitt)
This thread just came into my head, because I have this habit of going on religious forums and trying to explain to people why homosexuality is not immoral.

I have recently being battling on LDS net over why I disagree with their stance and have been fighting a never ending battle! Their religion teaches homosexuality is immoral. TBH I hope one of you guys gives me a new point to throw at them to prove that is not the case!

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-di...-disagree.html

I would say give up now. Arguing with religious people like that is like talking to a brick wall.