While California struggles with the issue of whether the definition of marriage being only between a man and a woman discriminates against homosexuals, and our schools struggle with how to present homosexuality as normal and healthy to our children in primary school, it seems like the question of whether Homosexuality is a patholgy has gone largely ignored. Scientific circles, specifically in the area of Psychology, used to fall squarly in the camp that preferred homosexuality is a disorder. Now, it seems many have shifted to the opinion that it is society that must change to accept homosexuality as norm, which seems odd since those same scientific circles now categorize more and more things we used to consider normal as disorders(ADD, Sex addiction, Erectile dysfunction in the elderly, etc, etc). Without going into the psychological aspects of the condition, it would seem that by most ordinary measures, something that destroys your ability to pro-create naturally would be considered a pathology. Furthermore, despite the campaign to frame HIV-Aids as something other than the disease of homosexuality, the fact remains that if you are not an intraveneous drug user, your best chances of contracting aids come from homosexual intercourse. Without the intervention of science with sperm and egg donors, test tube babies, surrogate mothers, and cocktail drugs to fight HIV, common sense dictates the lack of procreation would terminate the gene pool of any homosexual disease did not, if nature was allowed to take its course. Religious circles, including my own, condemn homosexuality as a sin against god, but I absolutely do not want any opinions based on religious beliefs stated in this thread. We already know where you stand. This thread is also not about whether discrimination against homosexuals should be acceptable, so please don't take it there either. If you have something to say, it should have some reasonable and logical scientific premise behind it.
Simple truth homosexual behavior is unnatural behavior . A homosexual is killed by natural selection for his/her genetic material is permanently destroyed . Weather the behavior is caused by inferior genetics or by a complex triggering mechanism that is irrelevant . That fact is that by being a homosexual you destroy the basic structure of society - the family . The stupidity that we are faced with is that in the name of equality gays where given numerous perks some in the detriment of the majority . Weather if homosexuality should be treated is a complex debate that will be influenced by how we look upon homosexuality . The current problem is that we try to classify homosexuality as normal when our entire genetic code is yelling "that's wrong , blah" . We have evolved past simple genetics but TBQH i think we're going to such great lengths to ignore them that we're at the point where we are doing more wrong then wright .
The last poster mentioned "natural selection", another name for the theory of evolution, which is a religion. It is based on faith, not demonstrable, repeatable facts. Things that can be repeated, and can be demonstrated are true science. Since people can change back and forth between being homosexual and not being homosexual, it would seem to be a choice.
The argument I hear put forward by most is that it is most definitely not a choice. Those who go back and forth are more properly categorized as bi-sexual, and my premise of pathology based on inability to pro-create naturally ceases to be applicable. I suppose bi-sexuals are probably worthy of a whole separate discussion. [Edit] I guess the question that strikes me is, how can Sex Addiction be considered a pathology if Homosexuality is not? And if Homosexuality is a pathology (a sickness), how can it possibly be introduced into our school sex education courses as normal and healthy?
To be fair, homosexuality is observed quite a bit in nature, though the end result is the same - Discontinuation of that particular DNA branch. Here is something you might like: As far as homosexuals destroying the basic structure of society, I'm hard pressed to see how they are any more damaging to society than the cast of Jersey Shore, Gene Simmons, Hugh Hefner, or rap music.
Gee, that's a great question. I fully support any question that will encourage discussion about a topic that people know so little about. And of course your inaccuracies can be fought with facts. A concept you seem yet to grasp. Now; My answer is no. It is not pathological. Well you must admit in the old days when people were persecuted the scientists certainly wouldn't have access to any accurate information and much of it was based on guesswork. As more homosexuals aren't afraid of being labelled more accurate information flourishes. Different scientists do say different things as history shows. IMHO they have not changed their opinions per se, just other people have joined the scientific community, with other ideas and more accurate information. Albeit many of the 'new ideas' are sponsored by corporations with 'repair' drugs for sale. This 'could be' because the pathology theory has been disproven so they work on other not yet proven stuff? Whilst others would see it as a more humane answer to the over population problem. Fortunately there you chose a subject I do know a lot about. Not only was a previous partner of mine infected but my current partner's thesis was done on this subject. This 'fact' you presented is utter rubbish. In fact World Health Organization says that the vast majority of people with AIDS worldwide got the disease from heterosexual - not homosexual - intercourse. Homosexuality is indeed a non-procreation relationship which means in theory we will die out without leaving offspring and therefore most (myself excluded because I do have kids) won't leave our homo-genes behind. According to the theory you present, and later almost state, a pathogen would surely be dead by now. In fact, it's heterosexuals that create most gay people in the first place and facts show homosexual children more often than not, turn out heterosexual, and IMHO, much more balanced. There, that's how I argue a rational debate. Notice I never once had to resort to irrellevant name-calling and rhetoric to make my case?
When it comes to scientific opinion, most of the science we are talking about is psychology, IMO a science in it's infancy. To say new ideas have been brought to the community might be analogous to saying we've given up leeches for blood letting. Perhaps the most simple test to see if this "science" has become politicized is to answer the question you omitted from your posting. Is Sex Addiction a pathology? Is ADD a pathology? If the answer to these questions is yes, how do you not call homosexuality a pathology? Does not the existence of "repair" drugs itself indicate pathology? Population control happens when a couple decides to have two children instead of three. 2.1 is the number under which a population declines. Zero children is called the extermination of the species, and certainly the specific genetic branches of the parents, which is as terminal as things can get. That is interesting, considering the scientific evidence points out HIV and every other STD is much easier to contract via anal sex. Your WHO statistic excludes the nasty footnote that I'll include for you here: If that were true, there would be no more cancer on the planet, yet people with no cancer in the family pop up with cancer all the time. Heart disease as well. Newsflash: It does not have to be passed on genetically to be a pathology. What, you expected most of them to be the offspring of the rare homosexual with a child? Leaving the obvious HiV and Psycology debates aside, I'm still trying to figure out how a state of mentality that prevents you from pro-creating can not be called a pathology. Anything else that leads to sterility is certainly termed as such.
Homosexuality like transsexuality are both set before birth at week 7 to 8 when gender in a pregnancy is set by a hormone boost to trigger gender sex characteristics (penis, vulva, testis, ovaries) if things go wrong at this stage, you end up with a number of things that go wrong, and can be classed as intersexed, transsexual, homosexual states. these also occur in nature amongst the animal kingdom Intersexed = a mixture of some or all of the following: chromosomal abnormalities, mixed sex characteristics, brain development maybe opposed to the assumed gender. Transsexual = brain development opposed to the assumed gender. Homosexual = brain developed for correct gender, but programmed to attraction of same gender. homosexuality is also split into 2 sub groups for active and passive masculine and effeminate males although it might be that the effeminate males fall into the transsexual group. So you see if its anything, its just a birth defect. that from top to bottom, is listed in order of seriousness or complexity
Hetrosexuals are infected far more than homosexuals. so to think of it as a gay disease is very misleading.
I did answer, maybe I should have separated it...? No is the straight-out answer. I don't believe your sample sicknesses are pathological. I believe it's more of a case of hey, we can get funding if we put out these misnomers. and of course people wanting a name to diagnose their symptoms. Cancer and heart disease, as you are about to find out, is caused by many things including genetics and if genetics was the sole cause i'm sure that it would die out given the scenario we sterilise everyone with the disease. Smoking, they say, is another cause of cancer, as indeed is radiation and exhaust fumes. The stuff now heading over there towards you will no doubt increase the prevailance of it throughout your own town. Now i'm guessing here but pathology means 'disease' and a disease means it is spreadable upon contact, whether by air or touch. The mere fact a heterosexual is sitting in the same room as me yet can remain a heterosexual refutes the pathological theory IMHO.
LMAO you do realise that this makes people bisexual not homosexual? only your mouth and religious teachers are crying out. your genetics have nothing to do with it as ALL homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples. or are you suggesting homosexual couples pass their genes to their offspring? this is really not rocket science were talking about, think about it, has it sunk in yet?
I wonder over the brains of those people who advocate the legalization of Homosexulaity. Are not they trying to break the nature of law? I have read in old islamic book that a developed tribe was devastated for doing this crime. God sent rain of stone over them.
Then a new question for pondering would be ; "Is the human genome deteriorating or becoming better ?" By better I mean are higher forms of DNA ocurring in humanity ? If it is the former ( deteriorating ), and homosexuality is advancing, what then should be done ? As for homosexuality and heterosexuality... everything came from heterosexuality. If heterosexuality is normal, why did it deteriorate into something abnormal ? Why would a person want to participate in something abnormal ? Yes... lots of questions... Obamanation, have you opened a "can of worms" ?
I have to question the intelligence of people taking part in this thread, i mean surely if you are not even sure what a homosexual is (homosexual men do not have sex with women), then you do not qualify to comment in this thread?
The thread is really about acceptance in the school curriculum of differing sexual orientations than heterosexual activity - i.e. the characterization of differing sexual conduct as pathological in averting its acceptance within the context of allowable state curriculum. Disavowing Religious orientation as a protected right and substituting a scientific conclusion as the legal standard to suit their pre-conceived agenda as the proper role in State sponsored education. How the subject is taught in the schools rather than what is taught is not to their liking but at least a substitute to avoidance that seldom is a solution and the reason for the curriculum in the first place.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it the gay disease, but for a variety of reasons, homosexual men and women who have had sex with homosexual men (and intraveneous drug users) make up the lion's share of the cases in the US. Ghonnorea, Syphilys, and other STDS are the result of sexual promescuity, yet we don't try and hide promisquity as one of the leading root causes of these disease for fear of offending the promisquous, do we? I haven't looked it up, but I'm fairly certain we have a pathology name for the overly promiscuous, another behavior that can lead to premature demise. The conservative in me wants to agree with you on that. People making up diseases so they can sell you cures, etc. The logical side of me says our ivory tower intellectuals have spent a lot of time, money, and educated brain power considering these issues and giving them classifications they may rightly deserve. Whether you agree or disagree, you have to admit there is something very curious about a scientific community that is agressively labeling more and more of the things as pathological, while at the same time changing the labeling on something unanimously considered pathological to normal. It reeks of politics, which should have no place in science. You guessed wrong. That would be a straw man. As far as I know, homosexuality has never really been considered contageous, but then again, neither has cancer, brain tumors, or pschizophrenia. Why breeze, that may be one of the most coherent things you've ever written. Running low on "the garden"? It still reeks of the normal paranoia like "their agenda" and "their liking", as if this thread had anything to do with "them". Who are "they" anyway. Nice red blob by the way. To the rest of your post, yes, this thread is partially about what is taught in our schools, though it is not the primary focus of the topic. Sexual behavior outside of homosexuality falls into a variety of clinical and legal categories. For instance, if you like having sex with 6 year olds, you are going to wind up in prison. If you like asphyxiating yourself during sex, you may be considered a pervert with a pathology(ask David Carridine). If you like sex with multiple partners, that is all well and good, so long as you don't try and marry them, which is illegal. I've got a friend who is an ER doctor who once had a patient roll into the er with two wires shoved up his penis. The two wires had peices of the insulation stripped away every few inches which, when hooked up to a battery, heighted his solo experience. All well and good until the wire 18 inches or so of wire got balled up and wouldnt come out. Pathology? Not sure you have to be a rocket scientist to say yes. Yah, its a topic like the breakdown of the family structure in black communities. Everybody likes to just dance around the very real issues because the topic deals with a group of people that has been heavily discriminated against. It certainly has more merit than yet another thread about Israel.
First of all, i don't think homosexuality is a disease or pathology. They were born this way so no offence. As for the discrimination thing, yes homosexuals are discriminated. The intensity varies from region to region and other factors but yes they are discriminated. Although i would say that their ratio should remain low. If there is a throw of views on the charecterstics of homosoxuals by scientific behaviour, then its going to be a long debate. A more important problem IMO is that the present discrimination must be stopped. Sorry i posted what you did not want but this is something that should get more attention now.
I was going to mention that statistic for the other poster. I read that homosexuals are around five time more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals. I do not have a link for that...
So your argument is that it is not a pathology because someone is born that way? Would you argue that a person born with congenital heart disease is not sick because they were born that way? Then start another thread.
The discussion was their being born that way precluded their being discriminated against, not necessarily they are not sick. Gosh, I guess you have already coined that one to your own liking - No debating Your Own love of God?