You should research any organization you donate too.

The indesputable reality is that anybody who condemns homosexuality on any grounds is engaging one or more factors among delusion, willful ignorance, prejudice, spite and a whole host of other anti-social dysfunctions. Further, as with every population that refuses or is unable to adapt, antigay factions are becoming less and dying out in adherence with the laws of evolution.

So, all you well meaning, self limiting anti-gay bigots who don’t believe in evolution can die happily thinking they’re still right. The rest of us will understand what a good thing attrition of the archaic is.

It is not worth it to spend a half hour on a response then get it scrubbed and you have no way of choosing your
words so it will get through the censor.

I have always believed that homosexuality is a mental illness regardless of the APA’s political decision made in 73. This is based on what I have read that makes sense and my personal experiences.

So sorry, but since I have no way of knowing if it will get posted I am not willing to spend the time again.

Maybe SPLC could publish posting guidelines so we all know rather than “randomly?” deleting them.

MrsCaptJack,

I agree with you in that many people do try to diguise or soften their religiously motivated prejudices by referring to mental illness among other things. It doesn’t matter what group you want to oppress, its difficult to do so unless you can understand them as being a threat or danger in some way shape or form. Typically, they end up claiming that sexual orientation is a choice and that on top of that, its an unhealthy choice that is dangerous to society (usually dangerous to children).

On the other hand, I don’t think that this is true for everyone. The ‘mental illness’ approach took on a life of its own in the 1900s with a separation from the religious ethics that had preceeded it. As one example, the Soviet Union, which was by no means religious, used the mental illness arguement for a few decades and came up with some inventive if macabre ‘cures’ before they decided it was more conveniant to just say homosexuality was anti-revolutionary and a cause of facism.
The Soviets were celebrating their triumph over this ‘remnant of the exploiting classes’ around the same time that the USA, Canada and Britain were banning gays from public service for fear that they would become communist agents and sympethisers.

As I stated above, if you believe that any country has the right to make whatever laws it wishes, without interference, that is your right. Since you don’t seem to be especially hypocritical about it, that’s fine.

As for the “political decision” by the APA, what makes you think that the definition of mental disorder can ever exist removed from politics? For that matter, there are political and pseudo-scientific reasons that the first DSM included homosexuality as well, but I don’t expect you to pay any attention to those. In any case, the activism of the gay-rights movement was only one part of that decision, which was also influenced by newer research by psychologists like Evelyn Hooker.

Hooker’s method was an interesting one. She gathered the psychological profiles of heterosexual and homosexual men, 60 in total, and asked fellow psychologists to identify which profiles were those of gay men and which those of straight men. Unsurprisingly, they were unable to do so or indeed to identify any differences. The supposed ‘duress’ faced by the APA should also be measured against the fact that the majority of America was opposed to homosexuality being removed from the DSM, and the pressure was hardly one sided.

But it is difficult to dialogue with you on this issue without knowing where you’re coming from. My own opinions on homosexuality come from the statements of organizations like the APA, as well as research which I’ve read that argue in favour of that position. My views are also influenced by the research I’ve read which argues that homosexuality is unnatural or a mental disorder, and my own experiences as a gay man. If you want to know my sources, I’d be happy to offer names.

Which brings me to my question. You state that you believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, what I would like to know is WHY you believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder? What evidence have you seen or come across which supports that idea?

“However, I am not really ‘supporting’ Uganda”

Yes, you are, Jack.

You’re an evil, hateful man who wants to kill gays, Jack.

You hate America and everything it stands for, Jack.

And you hate Jesus. You really hate Him, Jack.

Go move to Uganda, Jack.

“Don’t believe me? Read the UN convention on Genocide. It’s one of the only cases where the UN is able to legitimately intervene in the affairs of another state.”
If I had my way the U.S. would not be a part of the UN. The UN can not do anything legitimate as far as I am concerned. Have we not learned yet the stupidity of foreign entanglement?

However, I am not really “supporting” Uganda. They are a sovereign nation and can do what they wish within their borders.
If another nation doesn’t like it, fine, invade them and take over and do as you wish.

One is forced to wonder if you would be so quick to support Uganda were it to pass a law making Christianity or following the Jewish faith punishable by death. Or for that matter, since being gay is not something people choose for themselves, punishing people for being born the wrong skin colour.

For the record, twin studies are notoriously unreliable to begin with, as we’re discovering now that monozygotic (identical) twins often differ in areas commonly percieved to be controlled by genes rather than environment. Issues of self selection, and the fact that most twins come as close as possible to identical environments mean it can be very difficult to infer anything from twin studies. With this in mind, a review of twin studies would still give the opposite impression to your statement. Most suggest genetic factors, namely one twin being gay predicts being gay in the second twin between 30%-50% of the time. This is much higher than the number of gay and lesbian people in society (1%-10% depending on the study) and higher than its usual correlation among siblings.

In any case, it never gets old listening to the anti-gay crowd rally around the idea that gays and lesbians choose their sexuality. Interestingly enough, no reputable health or psychological organizations still support that position. Interestingly enough, very few heterosexual people, even those who experiment with people of the same sex, ever actually make a concious choice to be gay. For that matter, why would someone actually want to be gay? It’s not like we’re reaping a whole bunch of benefits by being part of a group that is reviled, hated, and whose rights are opposed whenever the oppertunity strikes.

There remains the issue in the Ugandan law where it requires family members and friends to report their gay relatives or face imprisonment, and the fact that its proposed goal (stopping disease) has been discredited by all of the AIDS groups actually working in Africa and around the world; but what it comes down to is this. It would not be acceptable for Uganda to punish members of a certain religious group with death, why should they have free reign to conduct a genocide against gays?.

Don’t believe me? Read the UN convention on Genocide. It’s one of the only cases where the UN is able to legitimately intervene in the affairs of another state.

The Convention of course, doesn’t include sexual orientation as a form of genocide, which has less to do with genocide and more to do with the fact that the USA, USSR, and Britain all had laws against homosexuality and the gay men liberated from the Nazi concentration camps that spawned the UN Convention were often were liberated straight into german jails.

If you believe Uganda should be able to just kill whoever it pleases, that is your right, but somehow I doubt you’d extend its right to kill groups which you have a more personal connection with.

No one has ever been able to prove that.
The best twin studies available show that it is not a genetic issue.

It is quite an unsettled issue.

And “aggravated homosexuality” (whatever that is) would be punished with the death penalty.

These Religious Reich Wingnuts actually SUPPORT executing people just for being gay.

Like they do in Iran.

You make a good point, it is all too easy for those persecuted by religious people because of their sexuality to come to see all religion as an enemy. Many faith groups do support LGBT rights, as do many faithful individuals. Some do this because their church teaches values of compassion and equality, others take a stand for fundamental justice despite their church’s official teachings.

In this area, we differ when it comes to the Catholic Church. While I agree that the Catholics officially have a position opposed to discrimination, they are by no means supportive of LGBT people. As you say, they are in favour of ‘basic’ justice, or in other words, they support my right to be free from violence; but they’ll spend tens of millions of dollars opposing any policies that would recognize me as equal or recognize my relationship.

Let me clairify my position. I am not saying that any religious group should be forced to act against its beliefs, however I cannot respect any religious group that attempts to impose its prejudices upon society at large. When a church withdraws funding to charity organizations because those organizations support LGBT people openly, or when it withdraws charity activities because a jurisdiction allows same sex marriage, I have a difficult time seeing an organization that supports even basic justice.

Horsley is an extremist in his anti-gay and anti-abortion rhetoric, however, his anti-gay ideology comes from the same mindset as the lesser forms seen within the Catholic Church’s official doctrines, and in the tennents of many other Christian and Muslim groups. The rise in anti-gay sentiments in much of Africa is largely the result of the growth of fundamentalist forms of Christianity in the region in recent years. These anti-gay reactionaries draw upon anti-sodomy laws that were imposed by colonial powers, and the governments have learned that they can count on churches to back them up when it comes to their homophobia. The result is that persecution against gays (and lesbians) is on the rise.

As long as it is acceptable to believe that some people are inferior to others and should be treated as second class citizens, I doubt we’ll ever see the end of such people as Horsley or their rhetoric. Sadly, the mainstream religions have difficulty protesting anti-gay violence that is promoted by their holy texts, especially if they themselves persist in believing that homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism are unnatural and sinful. Even western countries have a difficult time raising their voices in protest without looking like hypocrites, especially nations like the US which have plenty of legislation designed to impose lesser forms of the same breed of discrimination.

Allow me to add this to the discussion. Some reports have said that the Vatican declined to sign a resolution calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality on the grounds that it would impose hidden agendas. That’s actually not the whole story.

http://www.zenit.org/article-24444?l=english

Again, I am simply hoping to add to the discussion and showing that many “conservative Christians” are not like Horsely. I do appreciate past posts citing a “reparative therapist” calling out extremist activities. I thought I would also add the Holy See’s calls for basic justice. Do with this comment what you will.