Gays have a disease, what about it?

Homosexuality is like a disease in many ways, or at least a genetic predisposition to develop a disease.

So how does this have anything to do with how gays should be treated?
Do we get angry at people with Parkinson's disease for shaking, or people with Tourette's syndrome for blurting out words? No, of course not.

Then some people try to say that homosexuality is a choice. Yes it is, but what type of choice?

If most normal men were kept away from intimate female contact, they would become dysfunctional. Men without females for long periods of time usually become depressed and have less motivation, in many cases being unable to function in society. This type of lonliness tends to cause problems in work or school. Irritability, rage, insecurity, or alcoholism are other associated problems. So now one could ask whether these problems could potentially be alleviated if a normal (not homosexual) person was with a sexual partner of the same-gender. I think it is obvious that this would not satisfy their needs.

So should people really expect gays to turn to partners that they are not really attracted to? Would this not just cause the type of problems for them that have just been described? In other words, choosing not to be gay does not really eleminate the disease.

Homosexuality does tend to be disgusting, much more so than normal heterosexuality. So perhaps gays should just be gay out of the view of the public. Some people are sexually aroused by "scat play". Homosexual sex is really not much different. Some skin diseases, such as seborrheic keratosises (do not google search it, you will be sorry) are disgusting. That does not mean we should treat the people with these diseases badly.

There are gay genes in every human population (some populations much more than others, contrary to what progressives teach). I suppose it could potentially be possible to eleminate homosexuality through eugenics, but this is never going to happen any time soon. (by eugenics I mean forming zygotes outside the female body, then doing testing and selective implantation of genetically-preferred zygotes).

Really, all the above has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage or "gay rights". I just do not understand how people can be "against" homosexuality. That is like being "against" cancer. What can you really do about it? If someone has the flu, do we get angry at them for sneezing too much- just so long as that sneezing is not near us? Of course, this is not to say that promiscuous disease-spreading homosexuals are blameless.

 

No... irrational animus is very much akin to a disease. Homophobia causes many to be both miserable and pitiful.

Please, get help for your neurosis.

 

I think the OP is trying a new spin at the topic and is positive not negative

If behavior which differs from the "norm" is considered a disease then I'm terminally ill

 

Homosexuality (sexual orientation) is not a choice. Homosexual behaviour is.

Anyway, good thinking there. Even if we assume homosexuality is a disease, it is still no basis for being a homophobe. Quite the opposite, we are obliged to help the poor homosexual sufferers lead a happy life, arent we? For example, disabled people often have many regulations to support them and nobody attacks them just because they have a disease.

 

It's a choice. Perhaps in some cases made on a primitive level, so primitive that they think they were born that way.

It's a sin. is all. Like any other sin that others are tempted by. They're no less loved by God, they just have a difficult time avoiding this sin and temptation because society makes it easy for them to give in. Society is an enabler and worse in these instances.

 

I disagree. Even desires such as liking certain foods or art are not choices, but subconscious drives. Sexual attractions are even more basic instincts, comparable to hunger or thirst. No sexual attraction can be a choice. I sure as hell did not choose mine.

Or if you subscribe to the "homosexuality is a disease" notion, then homosexuality is no more of a choice than mental illnesses such as psychopathy or schizophrenia.

As for sin, this is not a problem from christian perspective, because homosexual behaviour is indeed a conscious choice, so thats where responsibility comes in. Not any different than with heterosexual sexual sins.

 

hmmm

this makes for an interesting discussion

if you can teach a left handed person to be right handed then why can't you teach a person to be heterosexual?

 

Homosexuality is not a disease, though some can/will only understand and/or rationalize it within others as such.

We can casually think about sexual-orientation, but formal research has already been done. They know that sexual-orientation isn't some "choice", as the most credible experts in the field would agree.

It's about far more than wanting to be one orientation or the other. And in essence, unless a person is bothered within themselves about their sexual-orientation... there is nothing to "treat" as a disease whatsoever. In fact, the most credible research has shown that attempting to 'alter' a person's sexual-orientation can damage them.

After all, do we really know ANYONE who consciously chose to be gay/straight?

 

Well, it may have to do with the difference between conscious and subconscious activities. A left handed person may gain right handed dexterity (I hesitate to call it right-handedness) by consciously choosing to perform tasks with right hand, eventually getting good at it.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine how a homosexual could consciously choose to be attracted to women, eventually getting good at it. It is simply a matter of lower brain areas that work autonomously, not higher brain cortex.

Even assuming success, this would lead to bisexuality only, meaning natural homosexuality and learned heterosexuality, so the "sin" is still there. So then there is the question of how to get rid of the homosexual attraction. And I am sure that everyone will agree with me that getting rid of your crush is not only not a choice, but god(*)(*)(*)(*) impossible..

 

^ Opinion. Meanwhile, homosexuality ceased to be considered a disease by the bulk of medical and mental health professionals a long time ago. Whose opinion is more trustworthy: random guy on the Internet, or the consensus opinion of health professionals? I would say the latter.

An obviously biased opinion. Nothing more need be said, really.

Or maybe authoritarians who seek to unnecessarily limit the liberty of others for their own personal comfort should keep those opinions to themselves, since they're considerably more disgusting (in my opinion).

More obvious bias. Why do you assume that homosexual sex must of necessity involve feces?

Ridiculous. No research has conclusively proved the existence of "gay" genes. That there may be a genetic component of some sort appears to be supported by the research, but that's not the same thing.

Not within our current capabilities. Seriously, eugenics? Here's where a comparison to the Nazi Reich is unavoidable. Godwin's Law, so early in the thread.

That we would even entertain such an extreme "solution" to the "problem" of homosexuality as meriting discussion is really depressing.

Now I'm really offended.

Had to figure that was coming sooner or later. Unless someone has already laid claim to it, I propose we call the inevitability of STDs like HIV/AIDS being introduced into any discussion about homosexuality as "Perri's Law".

 

you forgot pedophilia

 

Some time in the future, it will be possible to genetically engineer babies, probably including a predisposition to certain sexual orientation. It is technically eugenics, but good eugenics in this case, as the ethical issue of sterilising/killing undesirables is not there.

Anyway, if such a technology is available, I would engineer my offspring to be bisexual, they get the most fun..

 

This Topic post should be seen for what it really is -----a series of lies built on a huge introductory lie .
In my opinion , it is deliberately and wilfully dishonest and represents discrimination at its tackiest and most repugnant .
There is no evidence that HS is a disease or remotely behaves like a disease .Anybody who tries to tell you differently is deliberately misleading you . There is no evidence anywhere to support the idea .
The rest of the Topic can be shredded .
At least three later opinions / remarks are disgusting
1 He writes , " So should people really expect Gays to turn to partners they are not really attracted to ........ "
Nobody has ever discussed such a lunatic idea . It should never be introduced as though it is an accepted possible solution , or that anybody would support such drivel in the first place
2."HS does tend to be disgusting ,much more so than normal heterosexuality"
So blatantly rubbish that it is almost impossible that anybody could be so offensive .
Unless the author himself practises both homo and hetero sexuality and analyses them in quantitative terms with results that are peer accepted by world experts , there is no foundation for such nonsense .
3. He says , "So perhaps Gays should be Gay out of the view of the public"
More garbage and extremely tacky .
What is it that Gays do that they should not do in public ?
Answer ,The same things ( like for like) that non Gays do not do in public .

Overall a horrible Post .
Slimey
Highly Discriminatory and the equivalent of a toxic piece of Racism , is the way I choose that best describes it .

 

That's a third section of Perri's Law.

 

That is your opinon. What part is a lie?

I certainly did not mean to be deliberately and wilfully deceitful. Yes, it is discrimination. Discrimination should be properly used to appropriately deal with different types of people. What exactly do you find "repugnant" about it?

I thought I was being relatively generous and congenial to gays.

This is not true at all! There have been several threads on this forum debating whether homosexuality is a disease. I will make it simple for you; the basic arguments are (1) that environmental conditions not optimal to the child's health or wellbeing (both in the womb, and during the critical developmental years) can contribute to the development of the condition, that the condition impedes normal social interaction and development, (2)that various other disorders are associated with homosexuality and that these cooccurring disorders are not caused by outside "discrimination", (3) arguments that homosexuality is cannot be explained as a functional condition within an evolutionary context.

I was addressing the position of many conservative Christians, who do in fact expect gays to become heterosexuals. As one Christian that I know told one of his gay family members, "Either turn or burn!"

Plenty of people, including many on this forum, find homosexuality disgusting. Perhaps this is not obvious within your small circle of friends that is insulated from the world around them.

If you have ever seen a gay parade, you would know what I mean.

[/QUOTE]
So now anything that criticises a group of people that give support to your "progressive" political policies is called "racist"? Sorry, you cannot apply the term "racism" to homosexuals— it is simply not about race.

 

Being different, even from an evolutionary standpoint, is not what qualifies as a "mental disease". Certainly something strange happened either genetically, in the womb, or during some other period, but that does not imply that it needs be treated as a disease.

Part of the reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM was because several studies have been done where psychologies were unable to tell the difference between homosexual and heterosexual people given psychological tests, like the MMPI. Abnormalities are not considered mental disorders unless they inhibit you from fulfilling one or more vital areas of your life, like the ability to work and be social. Mental disorders are characterized by their ability to dominate every area of your life and render you disfunctional. From an evolutionary stand point, they might not be reproducing like the rest of the population, but neither are priests, nuns, or any of the other variety of people who choose not to reproduce. Failure to conform to behavior that leads to reproduction is not considered a mental disorder.


As for the comorbidity with other diseases, there's certainly a fair amount of correlation. But the question is if homosexuality is itself the cause, or if the comorbid disorders and homosexuality are caused by a common factor. Not an easy question to answer, but I have my doubts. Most homosexuals are not shown to have any other mental disorders, myself and (most) of my friends included. As mentioned above, psychologists can't tell the difference between the two on personality and mental disorder testing.

 

Among the first things I learned on patophysiology was that there is no objective definition of a "disease", nor an universally accepted definition. There is no test that can tell you what is a disease and what is not. It is all a subjective consensus based on how an average human being looks like and what is subjectively considered harmful for the patient or others.

 

I love the "rules for being gay" handbook says "we must all agree to say we are born that way, and if one of you queers says it's a choice, we'll just say you weren't really gay in the first place"

 

With some of the comments left here, I am truely stunned that humans learned to walk up right.

 

I'm sure we'd also want to make sure they liked our kind of music, were good at sports and wanted to be very religious as well and etc.

I'm fairly certain that kind of technology will come... but the moral implications will be significant.

As I suggested above... there will be profound ethical and moral questions to be answered.

I can only say this: When I was growing up as a boy... if I could have been straight (rather than faking it), I surely would have. Bi-sexual would have likely been cool too... then I would have known what it was like to be turned-on by females; I'd have the option of getting married to someone relatively compatible to me 'sexually' as well as emotionally.

Still, it is funny to see some people talk as if homosexuals have to choose 'something'... like who they're attracted to as far as gender and other things. I am happy that I can be secure in my sexuality now... knowing this is how I've always been and not being ashamed of having been this way. The hardest part (I must admit) was putting religion into the proper role in my worldview, as the anti-gay bias of many who are "Christian", certainly affected my ability to be completely objective about the things I was going through (and virtually no one was detecting in me); others could not have helped me endure the difficulty of being homosexual if they tried.

I learned to fit in and pretend to be straight. I was never a feminine guy, so it was just a matter of me remaining cool, feigning interest in certain things and never talking in in such a way that revealed my true sexual feelings.

As things pertain more directly to this thread, I'd say that most homosexual people have a lot of VERY difficult things to endure or work-around 'socially'... it takes a tremendous toll on the individual as a human being. I can remember the sadness of knowing I'd be rejected (if anyone ever knew), the extra burden of keeping 'quiet' for most of my military career. Still, there was the JOY of being able to tell my siblings the truth later in life and also not having to fear losing my military 'retirement' just because someone found some obscure file in my computer's web history, or some casual or light display of physical affection to another man in public.

The homosexual people that we meet who are balanced individuals, are typically STRONG people... they know adversity that many who are heterosexual have no awareness of and certainly no experience with... they can/will tell you in the most practical ways why homosexuality isn't some "disease" (as the most credible science in the world has determined). Even so, if homosexuality was/is defined as a disease... that would IN NO WAY justify the fear, hatred and irrational animus historically and presently directed at homosexual people in general. The way I see it, that would be very much like kicking blind or a crippled people.

So, after all I've been through and seen other go through... I'm fairly intolerant of intolerance; and my time on PF (these boards) have taught me to strategically fight fire with fire. That is, I won't seek to annihilate anyone by beating them down intellectually and emotionally... but I will in some way and in due time communicate to them how I personally think/feel about their homophobia.

 

Does being gay impede someone in any way? Does this prevent them from doing household chores, or shopping for groceries? All the diseases you mentioned, do something of the sort.

 

Simply put, that's what being categorized as a "disease" comes down to. A "mental disease" is not simply something that is abnormal. A diseases are characterized by their ability to dominate your life and inhibit your ability to function.

Even from an evolutionary perspective, we don't categorize diseases based on the idea that the behavior is not viable evolutionarily. Otherwise homosexuals would be in odd company with priests and nuns, in terms of exhibiting non-reproductive behavior that is counter-evolutionary.

 

What is it about the "Gay" community types ,that they must attack the Language ,Homo=man phobia = fear so man fear .

sorry but how is the post you attack because of man fear relevent????

all the LGBTIQC is based on is crap really unscientific anti politics.Sorry biggoted Males of the Hetrosexual variety do not fear men.it makes no sense homophobia.Then again the term 'Gay " makes no sense either as dosen't lesbian .homosexual makes scientific sense.

 

Not to say that most catholic priests are homosexual.so homosexuals are not odd company to the Priesthood and I will throw in a lot of nuns as well .What happens in convents stays in the convent as they say.

 

Your fixation on semantics amuses me.