Marriage is arguably a pathological state for many. So its not a pathology because alternative methods have been found to reproduce. I suppose HIV is not a pathology because one can continue living with the right blend of drugs. Diabetes, same story, since monitoring and insulin can be used to manage blood sugar levels. Wonderful argument. Because....?
Because I don't think it is abnormal. It's not something that came up suddenly like a disease, it's something that has been done for a very long time before people invented writing. Animal do it too. Sex brings pleasure, after each one like this or that, some like big boobs, some like girls from other races, some like men with beard some like them looking like women, etc. It's only sexual preferences. One can argue by telling me: look at pedophiles, do you think it's not abnormal too? I will say no I don't think it is abnormal too and then it will be the godwin point, when anything I say doesn't matter, I'm wrong. Well, if you like to reason like this, then ok I'm wrong..
You seem to have trouble following multiple arguments at the same time. Let me dumb it down as much as i can for you. My point about homosexuals reproducing wasn't an argument against it being a pathology, it was an argument against your claim that homosexuality, the sexual attraction to the same gender, inevitably always leads to extinction. A point i assume you are retracting sinse admitting that there is nothing about homosexuality that prevents an individual reproducing and sinse admitting that homosexuals not only can, but do, reproduce.
And it doesn't lead to extinction since it affects about 10% of the population, and yes even in countries where there seem to be no homosexuality, especially in countries where there is still death penalty for homosexuality, hahaha
in a recent study, it was reported that 47.3% of psychiatric training directors (n=198) view homosexuality as normal or somewhat normal, 51.2% view homosexuality as neutral, and 1.5% view it as somewhat pathological or pathological. Townsend-1995, Academic Psychiatry 19:213-218
The thread makes no sense at all. As though by pronouncing Homosexuality a pathological phenomena it will then solve all his problems - His own definition of marriage and how H is taught in grade-school. O, find a life for yourself the carpet will not hide it any longer. The 60s are here to stay, the 0 year is fading.
I appreciate your admission that you made no argument against the pathology of Homosexuality. That leaves you arguing with the strawman you created, standard fare for you. While its entertaining to watch you do what you do, in the same way it's entertaining to watch a cat chase it's tail, I'd figure you would be interested in posting something that lends to your credibility rather than takes away from it.
Solve my problems? I live a problem free life. Its your problems I'm trying to solve. Perhaps you can explain to me why inability to call things what they are seems to be a liberal affliction. You heard about the kinetic exercise Obama is waging in Libya without congressional approval? Perhaps he thinks it will help prevent future man caused disasters. Thats the garden talkin, isn't it.
It's hardly a strawman to take a direct quote you made, namely that homosexuality leads to extinction, ask you two simple questions and in the process get you to completely reverse your opinion. That's called a victory. It demonstrated that not only were you wrong, but that you also knew you were wrong, which i guess makes you dishonest as well. As for homosexuality being a "pathology"; well pathology is the study of disease so no, it's not a pathology. Because to claim homosexuality is the study of disease doesn't make any sense. It's the sort of banal tripe someone who doesn't know what words mean would come out with.
But, would you say that being homosexual is pathologic ? It is not pathology, but is it pathologic ? LINK
I think he used the most precise term that came to his mind. It can be called deviation from normal behaviour, pathology etc. The point is that does homosexuality violate the rules of nature/Are they not fit/Is it a disturbance in their genes or something making them different from being normal. How can gay poeple have children by sexual means. Can you give a link/proof.
It may increase your risk of becoming HIV positive if you are living in the west, but even then, it's the HIV that is the disease, not the homosexuality. And that statistic isn't even accurate because globally HIV is far more common in straight people. You could only conclude that homosexuality is pathological for western gay men if you also conclude that smoking, eating and being straight in Africa is also pathological. Well that isn't what i said, i said they can reproduce. But even though it isn't what i was saying, of course gay people can reproduce by sexual means. What do you think would happen if a gay man had sex with a lesbian? They dont become sterile the instant they out themselves as gay. It was an argument against homosexuality ultimately leading to extinction. It wouldn't necessarily happen because gay people can, and do, reproduce.
Ok. Got you. I thought you were saying that homosexuals of the same gender can have children. Well, but look at it like this. People have children with the opposite sex with whom they love/marry. If the homosexual people want to take the generation further, they have to do sex with someone else. and not their gay partner. What i want to say is that they may like people of the same gender ( Homosexual ) but have to indulge in sex with opposite sex ( Heterosexual ). The extinction thing is considered that The same gender people reproduce. The latest researches have shown that upringing factors like Absent mother, molestation etc hardly play a role in determination of sexuality. The question of whether they are born this way is still not verified. An expiriment to study the sexuality of twins lead to a 51% correlation. The cause still lies undiscovered.
So classic. It took three posts to get you to admit you wanted to turn this into a debate over the definition, use, and applicability of the words pathology/pathological. Why don't you open a separate thread where you can have this debate with yourself. /yawn. Provide the quote genius. Provide the quote where I stated that "sexual attraction to the same gender inevitably always leads to extinction.". As far as your twisting of the facts, your insults, and your declaration of victory, more standard fare. Why don't you tell us again how the UK and NATO should be invading countries around the planet to free people from their ill conceived religious beliefs. Or perhaps you can enlighten us again on how Agnosticism = Atheism. I suspect it is actually possible to have one's IQ lowered for having engaged in a conversation with you. Your quote demonstrates well the popular opinion amongst Psychiatrists regarding the Homosexuality's status as a Psychopathology. There are four specific criteria that must be met to qualify, though it would seem the 1.5% who disagree that those criteria have been met are a well educated and very noisy bunch of homophobes . Anyway, I didn't set out to debate what the popular social norms are today amongst the blood letters who call themselves doctors in the field of psychiatry, though I'm sure that would be an entertaining and educational debate. I was driving at easier measure physical outcomes of the condition called Homosexuality.
it's a matter of definition and then not relevant. the fact is that certain proportion of the population is homosexual (open or repressed) whether the religious like it or not. Everyone would be considered sick in one way or another if put in the right (or wrong) society.
.............. Your response that other people have the problem is not the content of your thread but the issue you have brought to everyones attention by your own perplexity. You have the problem of believing there is a medical necessity to define a persuasion that does not conform to your personal beliefs as aberrant and disregard that the present conclusion by the medical community already states it does not. You also continue to proselytize religion when your original post prescribed against it - as a Muslim this is altogether understandable and explanative for your thread of denial you seek others to follow.
Referring to Homosexuality, your statement is inaccurate. There is consensus in the Psychiatry community that it is not a psychiatric disorder, though that consensus is challenged as you can see by the article I published above. In regard increased probabilities of other very real physical results, none of those are disputed by the medical community. When referring to liberalism, I do think the medical community should take up the study of liberalism as a psychological disorder. It leads one to draw illogical conclusions and expend effort changing the meaning of words in the English language. I would argue that excessive practice of liberalism as a society is harmful to the society as a whole. A good topic for another thread. Case and point about drawing irrational and illogical conclusions. Perhaps you can find the particular post of mine which lead you to believe I was proselytizing, and quote it back to me.