Would you be okay if your child came out as LGBT? (parties, income)

[NancyDrew1]

Should adultery become acceptable as that is just who they are?
Should beastality become acceptable as that is just who they are?
Should rapists become acceptable as that is just who they are?

No of course not. They all deserve HELP even if it isn't your pet vice.

It's amazing to me how much discrimination there is against people who come out as homosexuals.
As if they are somehow different and cannot change versus the above. They need help and they have a right to help. Feigning you care about them while perpetuating their lie and encouraging it is evil.
People please learn to CARE about EVERYONE

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by NancyDrew1

Should adultery become acceptable as that is just who they are?
Should beastality become acceptable as that is just who they are?
Should rapists become acceptable as that is just who they are?

<snipped>

All of the above are situations in which one person is doing another person or persons--or creature--harm.

Not the same thing as two consenting adults attracted to each other or falling in love.

[Happiness-is-close]

Originally Posted by NancyDrew1

Should adultery become acceptable as that is just who they are?
Should beastality become acceptable as that is just who they are?
Should rapists become acceptable as that is just who they are?

No of course not. They all deserve HELP even if it isn't your pet vice.

It's amazing to me how much discrimination there is against people who come out as homosexuals.
As if they are somehow different and cannot change versus the above. They need help and they have a right to help. Feigning you care about them while perpetuating their lie and encouraging it is evil.
People please learn to CARE about EVERYONE

I can't even.

[NancyDrew1]

Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close

I can't even.

You can. We can all love all people

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

Homosexuality is a mental illness.

Nice assertion. No back up for it though I notice.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

You mean the same organization that removed it as a mental illness due to social pressure from homosexuals?

That is propaganda, spin, and baseless assertion too though. Again made without any back up I notice. Back up like, oh I dunno, actually establishing why it was on the list in the first place and why it should be again? Give it a try. You might learn something.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

It is a mental illness. /shrug

You do know that repetition of mere assertion still leaves it mere assertion right?

Originally Posted by NxtGen

They removed it based on nothing more than social and political pressure.

Again repetition of assertion. You appear to be good at that. They might, at most, have decided to re-evaluate their position on the basis of social and political pressure......... which is quite often how MUCH work in the world is done........... but that their actual position was made based on it is just your wanton assertion and fantasy and little more.

The simple fact is there was no reason to have it on that list in the first place, least of all from you, and any removal of it is likely to have been because their re-evaluation of it's presence on that list resulted in them finding no justification for maintaining it on that list.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

They first claimed it was a mental illness, then only changed such by social and political pressure.

It is likely social norms and the pressure of social conformity that had them list it in the first place. So if social and political pressure is used to have such people re-evaluate and re-question their position then this is a GOOD thing, and we should be applauding "social and political pressure" rather than merely throwing out the phrase "social and political pressure" as if it is a dirty word that makes a point where you have otherwise failed to do so.

As we grow and learn as a species we are more and more clarifying what "mental illness" actually means and entails. And if that progress means that things once considered to fall under the purview of that discourse now do not...... well then bully for you.

The simple fact is no one, least of all you, has erected any arguments to declare homosexuality, or it's expression, as being problematic. Not socially. Not morally. Not ethically. Not biologically. Not in terms of mental well being. Nothing. You got nothing, your argument is nothing, your assertions amount to nothing.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

The point is that it is not a surprise that an institution that never truly followed scientific process would succumb to anti-science methods by ruling via consensus and not a proper scientific method of evaluation.

Then you are essentially saying nothing at all. You are saying it was unscientific clap trap listing it in the first place. You are saying it is unscientific clap trap removing it from the list later on. So your own argument, were it actually to be true in the first place, negates itself entirely either way. You are essentially saying nothing, but using as many word as you can to say it.

So let's us tack a different tack. Let us OURSELVES be scientific rather than decry (falsely or otherwise) the science of others. I am an actual scientist, so while you are a lay men you have the opportunity here to communicate science and talk the talk of science.

What are the SCIENTIFIC arguments that indict homosexuality in your mind. Socially, morally, ethically, biologically, or in terms of mental well being.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

You think you have an "I gotcha", but you really don't.

I think what the user is pointing out is not that THEY have the "gotcha" but that your own argument is a "gotcha" to itself. When you declare it unscientific to list it AND to delist it, then you have internally negated your own argument entirely and are left saying nothing. Which you also do, similarly, by decrying the lack of science in the arguments of others without moving to present any yourself.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

They established it as such by their own claims. My point is, they turned around and violated those very claims and removed it. So, if you think psychology is a legitimate field of study, then you have to object to the method that was used to remove it from the list. That is, it violated its own standards to establish such.

I think the black and white thinking you display is dangerous. We should not look at something like "psychology" and merely declare it "valid" or not. Rather we must look at it as a growing and maturing field that, through the application and improvement of methodologies, is BECOMING more and more valid. It is, you will get no argument from me, FAR from perfect yet.

So the question is not why they listed homosexuality in the first place OR why they later removed it. The question is whether there is ANY reasons on offer to think it SHOULD be listed now or in the future. And reasons for THAT position are quite thin from your corner. And by thin I mean non-existent.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

There are numerous reasons why homosexuality is abnormal, deviant, and counter to sound mental process.

Amazing how you say there are numerous reasons but then go on to not present any of them.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

If we are to claim that we have no grounds to object to such behavior as mentally ill, then we have no grounds to claim pedophilia, necrophilia, or the many other numerous sexual mental illness are wrong.

You are shifting between "illness" and "wrong" as if they are the same thing. The argument that the expression of these things is "wrong" is couched in things like "informed consent".

Whether they are an "illness" or not is yet to be established, but by all means let me see you try. But whether they are an illness or not, they are not "wrong" merely by virtue of existing. There is nothing "wrong" with BEING a pedophile for example. The evaluation of what is "right or wrong" should entirely by based on the ACTIONS of that individual. There is a CHASM of difference between desire and action, and merely BEING a pedophile is not "wrong".

The causes of being a pedophile, and whether there is any utility or accuracy in describing it as an "illness" is a conversation worth having, but it is a separate conversation to have from the morality of expression of it.

The difference however is that I can establish moral and ethical arguments against the expression of pedophilia. For example the concept of "informed consent". You have not once established any argument indicting the expression of homosexuality given it is an activity between consenting adults.

This is no small difference, though it might be more convenient for YOU if it were left under the carpet where you placed it.

Originally Posted by NxtGen

Invalid argument. Failure to state.

Come back once you have figured out how to make a valid or at least sound argument.

Says the person who's entire.... not just more but ENTIRE.... argument so far has been couched solely and entirely not just in assertion, but in a self negating assertion. You may wish to figure out these things yourself before you admonish others to do so.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by nycnyc11209

NO! ITS UNNATRUAL Male DNA is closer to Male DNA. So is female..its like having relations w/ urself = masty& wrong.

There is no "male and female DNA" though. DNA is not gendered. DNA extracted from men and women, with the minor exception of a short segment from the Y chromosome, has no consistent differences.

Also the term "unnatural" assumes too much.

Firstly a great majority of what we do as humans is "unnatural" so your point is a non-point. Do you think it is "natural" to communicate on this electronic forum? To use money? To switch on electric lights? To educate in schools? To cook food? To do science? To treat cancer and other diseases with science? To wear glasses? To wear clothes? To engage in agriculture? To fly into space? To launch satellites? To use powdered milk to feed babies? To keep pets? To.......... I could list things for hours. None of it is "natural". So what is your point?

Secondly homosexuality and other expressions of sexuality (including pedophilia by the way) occur throughout nature. So asserting it to be "natural" or "unnatural" in the first place is to miss the point entirely.

Thirdly Natural != Good and Unnatural != Bad or evil.

Originally Posted by nycnyc11209

Um.. Why has LGBTXYZ ppl grown in recent years?? Because they see it on TV/Media and get brainwashed..
..so they CHOOSE IT against their nature.

Except two facts step up that might be inconvenient to you. A) You have not substantiated the claim it was a choice in any way and B) these people are telling you in their DROVES that it was not a choice for them. Now while I acknowledge that "anecdote is not evidence"...... I am still more inclined to take the anecdotal claims of THOUSANDS of homosexuals, over the wanton and unsubstantiated assertion of a single poster on a forum who offers no sign of knowing what he is talking about.

Further the first question to answer when someone says "Why is X happening" is "IS X happening". So when you ask "Why has LGBTXYZ ppl grown in recent years" the question to first ask is WHETHER they have grown. And there is little reason on offer (none from you) to think they have. Rather the consensus appears to be that in a culture that is becoming more tolerant and open........ more of them are coming out AS homosexual etc.

But if you have evidence that there is actually more of them, rather than that we are merely SEEING more of them..... then I am all ears to hear it.

Originally Posted by pkbab5

Well that's just silly. Of course there are homosexual genes. I am a woman and I have the gene(s) that make me attracted to men. My husband has the gene(s) that make him attracted to women. If my son accidentally gets my genes instead of my husband's, then he will be homosexual.

You are almost right but actually the truth is even more subtle and beautiful than that. Your son does not "accidentally" get those genes. He ALREADY will get them. We ALL do. There is no separate genome for men and women. We all, with minor variances, get the same one.

So to add to what you said "I am a woman and I have the gene(s) that make me attracted to men" but ALSO the genes for being attracted to women. The difference is your genes for being attracted to men are ACTIVE while the ones for being attracted to women are DORMANT.

Which torpedoes the "no gay gene" AND the "gay gene" people because there IS no expectation OR requirement for there to be a gay gene. There is just the genes we all ALREADY have..... and whether they become active or not.

This makes the homophobes nervous of course. They do not like the idea (fact) that they themselves carry all the genes required for them to be gay. It is just that most of them, like most of us, happen to have those genes "dormant" and inactive.

[Natural510]

I'm more worried my child will end up on drugs, or in a dead-end job where they can't support themselves, and of course how the world will be when they are adults, than him growing up to be gay.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

Homosexuality is a mental illness.

Let me guess. You believe female hysteria is still at thing, right?

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

You mean the same organization that removed it as a mental illness due to social pressure from homosexuals?

It is a mental illness. /shrug

So, a group of highly educated scientists reevaluates the DSM and finds the criteria for declaring homosexuality a mental illness isn't up to snuff but you still cling to the mental illness argument.

Why?

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by DestinFam5

I am for gay marriage and gay rights but it absolutely has grown. You can't deny that at all! There is some sort of influence causing this and I think it's important to discuss for the validity of the gay community.

No it hasn't grown. There have ALWAYS been gay people just not so many out publicly. Homosexuality and the relative acceptance of the practice goes back centuries. You can find references to it from every part of the world and every culture.