|
On October 24 2011 05:02 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 04:57 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke. So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years. Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs. How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus. I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think. What does any of this have to do with gays right to marriage? None's trying to convince you to go gay. Just to let them have the right of getting married. How can you be against this without being religious?
Where have I ever written I'm against gay marriage? I'm for it.
You could at least try reading my posts before trying to teach me.
I'm not religious and if I was against gay marriage, it wouldn't make me a religious psycho either. What's wrong with you people, can't you read?
|
On October 24 2011 05:06 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 05:02 Euronyme wrote:On October 24 2011 04:57 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 02:32 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2011 00:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 22:55 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2011 18:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.htmlGoing on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it. Would I do that? No Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct. People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism. I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field. You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias. You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it. However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion. So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against? You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke. So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years. Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs. How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus. I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think. What does any of this have to do with gays right to marriage? None's trying to convince you to go gay. Just to let them have the right of getting married. How can you be against this without being religious? Where have I ever written I'm against gay marriage? I'm for it. You could at least try reading my posts before trying to teach me. I'm not religious and if I was against gay marriage, it wouldn't make me a religious psycho either. What's wrong with you people, can't you read?
Oh I jumped in and assumed you had that opinion as that's what this thread is supposed to be about, and you have a very negative attitude toward gay people. Whatever.
I never said anything about psycho, I rather objected when you said it. Who's having reading problems? I'd assume you'd be religious though, as there are no other reasons(?). I never said that you were relgious, regardless.
You still havn't made any case on Why you don't think they deserve the basic right of parenting. Just that they shouldn't, which leads me to believe that you're simply irrational, which is easy to confuse with religious. Anti gay is basically only high up on the agenda of religious/ conservatist people, whereas atheists tend to either just not care or be for it.
|
Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
|
On October 24 2011 05:43 Kickstart wrote:
Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
Amen to that! Closing tab.
|
On October 24 2011 05:43 Kickstart wrote:
Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
My point is none of you are actually grown up enough to have a proper discussion because you generalize people and toss around stereotypes without reading people's posts. If psychology and psychiatry are precise sciences, homosexuals are in effect abnormal people and some would say mentally ill but you only accept the parts of the science that you like. You could at least read people's posts if you're not going to respect their opinions? Am I right?
Accusing other people of extreme bias and then not reading their posts and spewing random stereotypes is a good basis for a discussion? The only people being extremely biased and childish are in fact you lot.
Also comparing people questioning the results of a psychology study to thinking the world is flat? Could you be anymore desperately grasping at straws.
Firstly, geology and psychology are by no means similar sciences and there's absolutely no academical basis for comparison.
Secondly, the world being round is scientifically accurate and no matter how many tests you run, the outcome will be the same, unlike psychology where you have huge variations in individual cases.
We've known the world is round for hundreds of years and it has never changed. Psychology has classified homosexuals as seriously mentally ill for ages and still classifies it as a strong abnormality, now all of a sudden you're going to use it to argue for gay rights? Don't you see the HUGE contradiction in terms?
|
Welcome to the era of psychology where variation is beginning to be accounted for through gene expression. Hard facts, no more speculative bullshit. No more figuring things out through trial and error and guessing and authoritarian bullshit.
Psychology at the moment is still way too complex to even try being a "hard science". I mean, it's not like the brain is as simple as some huge ass rocks floating on a mantle of magma :D
+ Show Spoiler +Just kidding guys, all sciences are equal and I have no intent of starting a shitstorm.
Edit: and to stay on topic; I completely support Australia in their quest for the legalization for homosexual marriages.
|
Marriage is more or less just as important as a ring and a piece of paper nowdays anyway.
If they want to marry and adopt/IVF a kid, who am I to stop them being happy? I'll be voting for it, no harm can come of it and it will unite the country that little bit more. Win:win scenario in my eyes
|
I'm all for gay marriage, never had anything against homosexuality. I just don't see this topic (EDIT: by topic I don't mean this thread, I mean this controversy throughout the world.) ever coming to a close, mainly because their are just too many people out there that are blind to other people's beliefs, practices, ect.
In America is especially worse from my point of view. Too many people cling to the cliche that being a homosexual isn't "cool" in this generation (once again, still talking about in the U.S.). The whole "It Get's Better" campaign or whatever is really cool, but I just don't see if being successful, along with other campaigns, just because of the current generation of youth in America and perhaps other countries also. It's just not widely accepted here, and I don't really see an end to this in the near future, which is upsetting. It goes back to the fact that most of the younger population in the US only "hates" gays is because they want to fit in with their straight friends, and those straight friends probably do the exact same thing, and it's disappointing.
|
On October 24 2011 15:47 BudgetTheLeech wrote:
I'm all for gay marriage, never had anything against homosexuality. I just don't see this topic (EDIT: by topic I don't mean this thread, I mean this controversy throughout the world.) ever coming to a close, mainly because their are just too many people out there that are blind to other people's beliefs, practices, ect.
In America is especially worse from my point of view. Too many people cling to the cliche that being a homosexual isn't "cool" in this generation (once again, still talking about in the U.S.). The whole "It Get's Better" campaign or whatever is really cool, but I just don't see if being successful, along with other campaigns, just because of the current generation of youth in America and perhaps other countries also. It's just not widely accepted here, and I don't really see an end to this in the near future, which is upsetting. It goes back to the fact that most of the younger population in the US only "hates" gays is because they want to fit in with their straight friends, and those straight friends probably do the exact same thing, and it's disappointing.
I agree completely, I get to talk to a lot of gay youth, gay/straight alliances (school clubs) etc, and there is a lot of intolerance. But even in just the last 4 years, things have gotten a lot better, and they are continuing to get a lot better. Things are looking up for gay people, and rights are just on the heels in my opinion. We will see country by country, state by state, it will become legal, full rights. In my lifetime (I am 20), I think we will see universal equal rights in America, and that gives me hope.
Australians, please vote yes, even if you arent gay, you arent just voting for gay people to get rights, you are voting for equality and telling the world that you are serious about establishing equal rights for all people.
|
On October 24 2011 15:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
Firstly, geology and psychology are by no means similar sciences and there's absolutely no academical basis for comparison.
Secondly, the world being round is scientifically accurate and no matter how many tests you run, the outcome will be the same, unlike psychology where you have huge variations in individual cases.
We've known the world is round for hundreds of years and it has never changed. Psychology has classified homosexuals as seriously mentally ill for ages and still classifies it as a strong abnormality, now all of a sudden you're going to use it to argue for gay rights? Don't you see the HUGE contradiction in terms?
Knowledge change in science all the time, all sciences. No science has not had major turnarounds that completely changed it's view on many things. That is how science works. You can't hold it against one science that it for a long time believed something was wrong and pretend like no other sciences have. Should one doubt all of chemistry because we at one point thought there were only four elements? Should we doubt all of physics because it once thought gravity was not relative? Should we distrust all of biology because it for a very long time didn't believe in evolution? Should we not trust any doctors because medicine once thought mercury was a cure for quite a few things? The list will go on and on and on for all sciences, because that is how science works. It corrects its views based on new found evidence.
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill. You provided one link with a few studies that suggested homosexuals have a higher tendency for mental illness. As for the abnormal part I guess that depends on what criteria you go by for calling something abnormal. If you go by the broadest definition that it is anything deviating from the norm, ie any minority, then I'm sure no one would object to homosexuals being abnormal. Not even homosexuals.
|
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
User was warned for this post
|
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote:
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
|
Netherlands19141 Posts
It's depressing how hard it is for people to actually read your posts Evil_Monkey_ let alone understand them. I thought that post of yours on this page was a bit provocative for alot of people but no less true. From any biological or evolutionairy point of view they have to be seen as an abnormality, simply for the fact that they don't further a species through procreation. Sadly it seems hard to comprehend or accept that for, as it seems to be, the majority of the posters in these last few pages.
|
On October 24 2011 19:07 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote:
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys! If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
|
On October 24 2011 19:35 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 19:07 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote:
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys! If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else. But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias.
*the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons.
On October 24 2011 16:44 Badboyrune wrote:
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill.
Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
|
On October 24 2011 19:07 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote:
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys! If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
It is true that homosexuality being a mental illness was a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, but that was because homosexuality was against social standards, and psychology characterises socially disruptive behaviours as mental illnesses. For example, necrophilia is commonly observed in some animals (Google davian behaviour), and can be said to be somewhat natural, but is considered a mental illness in humans as it violates laws regarding abuse of corpses. Okay, I know this analogy is not very good since homosexuality, when fully consensual, does no harm, but the main point is that behaviours that go against social norms and are thus antisocial would be considered mental illnesses, and social standards vary across time, which can explain why psychologists in the past considered homosexuality an illness.
|
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote:While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive. Obviously, I am for gay marriage. Its not an issue of religous right or wrong, its an issue of freedom or lack thereof. Australia is a bigoted, homophobic country and I'll be surprised if this doesn't receive major backlash from mainstream news websites (seeing as how anti labor news limited is)While Australia is really quite behind in regard to its other policies (immigration, carbon, education) it does look to be moving forward in both a more humanitarian and logical direction (mainly because it can't pass its own legislation). Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues.
say what? you may think that but australia is 9999x less religious than the US/UK.
|
Actually homosexuality might not be an abnormality if you consider that it might be a gene selection mechanism resultant from population growth (most species are subject to population pressures long before our proliferation occurs), or a genetically proliferated social behaviour constructed by primate natural selection (see bonobo chimpanzee/the tamed fox experiment).
Obviously as a bisexual I'm biased but psychologists gave up classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder when they realized it wasn't one. For something to be a disorder it needs to interfere with the normal functionality of a regular human brain - obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, chemical imbalances and so on. There is an increasing body of evidence which suggests that homosexuality is just another of the normal operating modes of the human brain. Less common, but equally viable, just not relevant from the point of proliferation by natural selection.
It's no more a mental disorder than you being thicker than me is a mental disorder for you.
|
On October 24 2011 21:45 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 19:35 Badboyrune wrote:On October 24 2011 19:07 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote:
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys! If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else. But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry. To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias. *the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons. Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 16:44 Badboyrune wrote:
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill. Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
I'm pretty sure the reason why homosexuality not only exists naturally but might actually benefit species evolutionary was covered very well a few pages back. In addition calling something that is not harmful to yourself or your surroundings an illness makes very little sense.
|
On October 24 2011 22:26 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 21:45 vetinari wrote:On October 24 2011 19:35 Badboyrune wrote:On October 24 2011 19:07 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote:
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me.
Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys! If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else. But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry. To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias. *the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons. On October 24 2011 16:44 Badboyrune wrote:
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill. Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972. I'm pretty sure the reason why homosexuality not only exists naturally but might actually benefit species evolutionary was covered very well a few pages back. In addition calling something that is not harmful to yourself or your surroundings an illness makes very little sense.
Non sequitur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
