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

[Inevitable]

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.

Don't you mean effect not affect?

So because this is your friend's belief it must be true 100% of the time?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to get you to think outside the box you built to contain the universe.

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.

You are ignoring the fact that there were different manuals that existed prior to the DSM in your attempt to score points. If you think that prior to 1952 nothing was listed as a mental disorder because the DSM did not exist you are wrong. If we apply your lack of logic consistently that somehow proves that no mental disorders exist. The DSM was not created from nothing, it was designed to provide a uniform method of diagnosis.

By the way, nothing in DSM-I was classified as a disorder, they were classified as reactions. That doesn't prove you right, it just proves you ignorant.

Educate yourself.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/07/02/how-the-dsm-developed-what-you-might-not-know/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Don't you mean effect not affect?

So because this is your friend's belief it must be true 100% of the time?

You must be reading a different post, that claim does not appear anywhere in the post you quoted. You really need to learn to argue without using fallacies.

 

[Inevitable]

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

Don't you mean effect not affect?

So because this is your friend's belief it must be true 100% of the time?

You must be reading a different post, that claim does not appear anywhere in the post you quoted. You really need to learn to argue without using fallacies.

The poster has made those claims in different threads.

You really need to educate yourself on discussion before jumping into it.

 

[Inevitable]

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.

I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to get you to think outside the box you built to contain the universe.

Why?

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.

You are ignoring the fact that there were different manuals that existed prior to the DSM

So what?

in your attempt to score points.

You keep bringing up irrelevant bullshit in an attempt to be a contrarian.

If you think that prior to 1952 nothing was listed as a mental disorder because the DSM did not exist you are wrong.

I don't think that, I never said that. If youwant to get people to think outside of boxes stop cranking them into yours.

If we apply your lack of logic consistently that somehow proves that no mental disorders exist.

Again, your failure to understand discussionisn't mylack of logic.

The DSM was not created from nothing, it was designed to provide a uniform method of diagnosis.

What in the hell point are youtrying to make?

By the way, nothing in DSM-I was classified as a disorder, they were classified as reactions. That doesn't prove you right, it just proves you ignorant.

Are some reactions the cause of psychosis? You can't hold together a single thought when you are bent on some childish insults. If it is to frustrating to discuss things with me than bugger off.

Educate yourself.

Too bad you can't take your own advice

 

[Darkwind]

It's typically from beliefs about religion.

And?

And? Some of you love being told how to live your life and what to believe. Some of you would rather allow yourself to be programmed into the mindset of someone else's choosing rather than forge your own destiny. The O9A considers these people to be "Mundanes", because that is exactly what they are.

So many people want to believe that God has a plan for them. They don't want to believe that anybody else does.

No, I'm pretty much against Liberal doctrine.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

You maybe on to something.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You failed to prove me wrong.

I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to get you to think outside the box you built to contain the universe.

Why?
So what?

You keep bringing up irrelevant bullshit in an attempt to be a contrarian.

I don't think that, I never said that. If youwant to get people to think outside of boxes stop cranking them into yours.

Again, your failure to understand discussionisn't mylack of logic.

What in the hell point are youtrying to make?

By the way, nothing in DSM-I was classified as a disorder, they were classified as reactions. That doesn't prove you right, it just proves you ignorant.

Are some reactions the cause of psychosis? You can't hold together a single thought when you are bent on some childish insults. If it is to frustrating to discuss things with me than bugger off.

Educate yourself.

Too bad you can't take your own advice

That was funny, I love the way you project all your faults on other people.

You were wrong, just admit it.

 

[Inevitable]

I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to get you to think outside the box you built to contain the universe.

Why?
So what?

You keep bringing up irrelevant bullshit in an attempt to be a contrarian.

I don't think that, I never said that. If youwant to get people to think outside of boxes stop cranking them into yours.

Again, your failure to understand discussionisn't mylack of logic.

What in the hell point are youtrying to make?

Are some reactions the cause of psychosis? You can't hold together a single thought when you are bent on some childish insults. If it is to frustrating to discuss things with me than bugger off.

Educate yourself.

Too bad you can't take your own advice

That was funny, I love the way you project all your faults on other people.

You were wrong, just admit it.

You proved me right.