NO NEED To 'Cure' One's Sexual Orientation!

[September]

[MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]

Other humans do not need you interfering with their sex lives, or their love lives. They do not want it either. "Society" does not need or want another hater who constantly speaks out against that which he does not understand!

You have made your choices, and now you are old. Let the younger generations enjoy our youth without people like you attempting to herd us into the direction you deem "appropriate". You have this vision in your head that society is meant to be a certain way, that humans are meant to act a certain way, and you propel yourself against any that do not meet your "standards". Not only is that extremely ignorant, but it brings bad karma!

If you would only make the decision to rid yourself of this hate, it could all be over! It is not "wrong" to want peace, and to find it through your conscious choices and actions.

You haven't many years left. Do you really want to spend your last days full of hate and disgust, with images of other people's "sexually deviant behavior" haunting your mind, stressing you out, and seeping into your every thought?

Wouldn't you rather live your last days and die experiencing a beautiful state of serenity?

Think about it. Really think about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They didn't say that prior to 1952 until they changed it. So it wasn't legitimate in the first place.

Huh?

Yes, as far as the books were concerned, homosexuality was not a mental illness prior to 1952. It was added to the DSM.

Isn't that the year the DSM was first published? Does that mean there were no mental illnesses before 1952?

 

[Inevitable]

Darn, and here I thought you said there was no point continuing. I guess you're a liar then. Shock.
There is no epidemiologist who will not look at patterns of behavior and incidences of disease and draw conclusions about them. The high incidence of promiscuity, drug/alcohol addiction, failed relationships, violence, etc etc all point to homosexuals being mentally ill. There is no way to escape the conclusion.

It's a fundamental law of science.

correlation is not causation.

You really ought to leave this up to people that understand that.

we aren't having a discussion you making a fool of yourself and I am simply pointing it out.

you clearly have no business talking about psychology but I want you to continue talking to prove my point so please make another post me

Darn and here I thought you'd shut up instead of proving yourself a liar.
Please show me where any epidemiologist would ignore the statistics of any population group and assume that behavior did not influence outcomes. By your token smoking does not cause cancer nor do gun shot wounds cause deaths.
You're failing rather badly here.

You are confusing correlation with causation.

Leave this to people that know what they are talking about.

 

[Inevitable]

Huh?

Yes, as far as the books were concerned, homosexuality was not a mental illness prior to 1952. It was added to the DSM.

Isn't that the year the DSM was first published? Does that mean there were no mental illnesses before 1952?

No it means there wasn't a DSM.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, as far as the books were concerned, homosexuality was not a mental illness prior to 1952. It was added to the DSM.

Isn't that the year the DSM was first published? Does that mean there were no mental illnesses before 1952?

No it means there wasn't a DSM.

Which means you really didn't have a point.

Good to know.

 

[Peach]

It's a fundamental law of science.

correlation is not causation.

You really ought to leave this up to people that understand that.

we aren't having a discussion you making a fool of yourself and I am simply pointing it out.

you clearly have no business talking about psychology but I want you to continue talking to prove my point so please make another post me

Darn and here I thought you'd shut up instead of proving yourself a liar.
Please show me where any epidemiologist would ignore the statistics of any population group and assume that behavior did not influence outcomes. By your token smoking does not cause cancer nor do gun shot wounds cause deaths.
You're failing rather badly here.

You are confusing correlation with causation.

Leave this to people that know what they are talking about.

Those teachers I owe a great debt to lived crime free and drug free lives, let's look at Norway & Sweden:

No stats on gay crimes, drugs or alcohol abuse in either Norway or Sweden. Wonder why? Being gay does not the stigmatizism it does in the US.

 

[Inevitable]

Isn't that the year the DSM was first published? Does that mean there were no mental illnesses before 1952?

No it means there wasn't a DSM.

Which means you really didn't have a point.

Good to know.

Just because you fail to understand the point doesn't mean there isn't one. But it's okay, you don't have to understand.

 

[Inevitable]

Darn and here I thought you'd shut up instead of proving yourself a liar.
Please show me where any epidemiologist would ignore the statistics of any population group and assume that behavior did not influence outcomes. By your token smoking does not cause cancer nor do gun shot wounds cause deaths.
You're failing rather badly here.

You are confusing correlation with causation.

Leave this to people that know what they are talking about.

Those teachers I owe a great debt to lived crime free and drug free lives, let's look at Norway & Sweden:

No stats on gay crimes, drugs or alcohol abuse in either Norway or Sweden. Wonder why? Being gay does not the stigmatizism it does in the US.

This is the blatant flaw [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION] made. He is so desperate to find justification for his feelings that he will assume causation and correlation are the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it means there wasn't a DSM.

Which means you really didn't have a point.

Good to know.

Just because you fail to understand the point doesn't mean there isn't one. But it's okay, you don't have to understand.

You do not that there were manuals that existed before the DSM that helped psychologists diagnose mental illnesses, don't you? And that homosexuality was listed in some of those manuals. All the DSM did was to codify all the different diagnoses in one book.

What was the point you thought you made again?

 

[percysunshine]

If I claim I might be gay, and need to be cured....does Obamacare cover lap dances?

 

[Inevitable]

Which means you really didn't have a point.

Good to know.

Just because you fail to understand the point doesn't mean there isn't one. But it's okay, you don't have to understand.

You do not that there were manuals that existed before the DSM that helped psychologists diagnose mental illnesses, don't you? And that homosexuality was listed in some of those manuals. All the DSM did was to codify all the different diagnoses in one book.

What was the point you thought you made again?

Incorrectly of course, what is the psychosis?

The point is, just because it was assumed to be correct in the past doesn't mean that it is still correct today.

 

[GISMYS]

Just because you fail to understand the point doesn't mean there isn't one. But it's okay, you don't have to understand.

You do not that there were manuals that existed before the DSM that helped psychologists diagnose mental illnesses, don't you? And that homosexuality was listed in some of those manuals. All the DSM did was to codify all the different diagnoses in one book.

What was the point you thought you made again?

Incorrectly of course, what is the psychosis?

The point is, just because it was assumed to be correct in the past doesn't mean that it is still correct today.

GOD'S WORD TO SEXUAL PERVERTS= God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.=32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.

 

[Inevitable]

You do not that there were manuals that existed before the DSM that helped psychologists diagnose mental illnesses, don't you? And that homosexuality was listed in some of those manuals. All the DSM did was to codify all the different diagnoses in one book.

What was the point you thought you made again?

Incorrectly of course, what is the psychosis?

The point is, just because it was assumed to be correct in the past doesn't mean that it is still correct today.

GOD'S WORD TO SEXUAL PERVERTS= God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.=32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just because you fail to understand the point doesn't mean there isn't one. But it's okay, you don't have to understand.

You do not that there were manuals that existed before the DSM that helped psychologists diagnose mental illnesses, don't you? And that homosexuality was listed in some of those manuals. All the DSM did was to codify all the different diagnoses in one book.

What was the point you thought you made again?

Incorrectly of course, what is the psychosis?

The point is, just because it was assumed to be correct in the past doesn't mean that it is still correct today.

And to prove that you invented the fiction that it wasn't a considered a psychosis before 1952 because it wasn't added to the DSM until the DSM was printed for the first time. Talk about logical fallacies, how does that make sense, even to you?

 

[Inevitable]

You do not that there were manuals that existed before the DSM that helped psychologists diagnose mental illnesses, don't you? And that homosexuality was listed in some of those manuals. All the DSM did was to codify all the different diagnoses in one book.

What was the point you thought you made again?

Incorrectly of course, what is the psychosis?

The point is, just because it was assumed to be correct in the past doesn't mean that it is still correct today.

And to prove that you invented the fiction that it wasn't a considered a psychosis before 1952 because it wasn't added to the DSM until the DSM was printed for the first time. Talk about logical fallacies, how does that make sense, even to you?

There never was any psychosis. And you are using the term "psychosis" incorrectly. Psychosisis the pathology of a psychological disorder. Without a psychosis there is no disorder.

So, tell me how the psychosis attributed to homosexuality was directly caused by homosexuality in the past?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incorrectly of course, what is the psychosis?

The point is, just because it was assumed to be correct in the past doesn't mean that it is still correct today.

And to prove that you invented the fiction that it wasn't a considered a psychosis before 1952 because it wasn't added to the DSM until the DSM was printed for the first time. Talk about logical fallacies, how does that make sense, even to you?

There never was any psychosis. And you are using the term "psychosis" incorrectly. Psychosisis the pathology of a psychological disorder. Without a psychosis there is no disorder.

So, tell me how the psychosis attributed to homosexuality was directly caused by homosexuality in the past?

I never said there was a psychosis, did I? I have consistently argued that sexual preference is a choice, choices are not evidence of psychosis.

On the other hand, there are people that insist that it isn't a choice because they want to be comforted by the illusion that people are programmed to behave certain ways. Which position sounds more psychotic to you?

By the way, nice attempt to deflect from your failed argument that homosexuality wasn't listed in the DSM before the DSM was printed.

 

[Inevitable]

And to prove that you invented the fiction that it wasn't a considered a psychosis before 1952 because it wasn't added to the DSM until the DSM was printed for the first time. Talk about logical fallacies, how does that make sense, even to you?

There never was any psychosis. And you are using the term "psychosis" incorrectly. Psychosisis the pathology of a psychological disorder. Without a psychosis there is no disorder.

So, tell me how the psychosis attributed to homosexuality was directly caused by homosexuality in the past?

I never said there was a psychosis, did I? I have consistently argued that sexual preference is a choice, choices are not evidence of psychosis.

On the other hand, there are people that insist that it isn't a choice because they want to be comforted by the illusion that people are programmed to behave certain ways. Which position sounds more psychotic to you?

Without a psychosis, neither.

By the way, nice attempt to deflect from your failed argument that homosexuality wasn't listed in the DSM before the DSM was printed.

It was incorrectly listed in the DSM or any other manual prior to the DSM's publication. Saying that it was and therefore should still be is fallacious. I am not saying that was your argument, but that was the argument I was responding to and that you felt the need to interject.

 

[Silhouette]

And to prove that you invented the fiction that it wasn't a considered a psychosis before 1952 because it wasn't added to the DSM until the DSM was printed for the first time. Talk about logical fallacies, how does that make sense, even to you?

There never was any psychosis. And you are using the term "psychosis" incorrectly. Psychosisis the pathology of a psychological disorder. Without a psychosis there is no disorder.

So, tell me how the psychosis attributed to homosexuality was directly caused by homosexuality in the past?

I never said there was a psychosis, did I? I have consistently argued that sexual preference is a choice, choices are not evidence of psychosis.

On the other hand, there are people that insist that it isn't a choice because they want to be comforted by the illusion that people are programmed to behave certain ways. Which position sounds more psychotic to you?

By the way, nice attempt to deflect from your failed argument that homosexuality wasn't listed in the DSM before the DSM was printed.

With my friend it was an environmentally imprinted affect from being molested ["turned" in LGBT vernacular] as a boy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There never was any psychosis. And you are using the term "psychosis" incorrectly. Psychosisis the pathology of a psychological disorder. Without a psychosis there is no disorder.

So, tell me how the psychosis attributed to homosexuality was directly caused by homosexuality in the past?

I never said there was a psychosis, did I? I have consistently argued that sexual preference is a choice, choices are not evidence of psychosis.

On the other hand, there are people that insist that it isn't a choice because they want to be comforted by the illusion that people are programmed to behave certain ways. Which position sounds more psychotic to you?

Without a psychosis, neither.

Seriously?

Is that because you are hung up on definitions, or because you don't want to admit that you might be wrong? Feel free to throw in whatever argument that you actually used to reach that conclusion just so you can't accuse me of creating a false dilemma.

By the way, nice attempt to deflect from your failed argument that homosexuality wasn't listed in the DSM before the DSM was printed.

It was incorrectly listed in the DSM or any other manual prior to the DSM's publication. Saying that it was and therefore should still be is fallacious. I am not saying that was your argument, but that was the argument I was responding to and that you felt the need to interject.

I felt the need to interject because you made a claim that was false, ie that it wasn't considered a psychosis before the DSM included it in 1952. Just admit you were wrong and you will be able to stop trying to deflect from the fact that you were wrong.

 

[Inevitable]

I never said there was a psychosis, did I? I have consistently argued that sexual preference is a choice, choices are not evidence of psychosis.

On the other hand, there are people that insist that it isn't a choice because they want to be comforted by the illusion that people are programmed to behave certain ways. Which position sounds more psychotic to you?

Without a psychosis, neither.

Seriously?

Is that because you are hung up on definitions, or because you don't want to admit that you might be wrong?

You failed to prove me wrong.

By the way, nice attempt to deflect from your failed argument that homosexuality wasn't listed in the DSM before the DSM was printed.

It was incorrectly listed in the DSM or any other manual prior to the DSM's publication. Saying that it was and therefore should still be is fallacious. I am not saying that was your argument, but that was the argument I was responding to and that you felt the need to interject.

I felt the need to interject because you made a claim that was false, ie that it wasn't considered a psychosis before the DSM included it in 1952. Just admit you were wrong and you will be able to stop trying to deflect from the fact that you were wrong.

No I didn't. Prior to 1952 homosexuality was not listed as a mental disorder. That was 100% accurate and you proved me right.

Learn to argue than maybe you wouldn't have to resort to such childish behavior.