Inspired by cowboy: Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?
being happy is a mental disorder? I'd say going into politics is a sign of being mentally unstable, because some of the shit politicians do are fucking disturbing and I'm not kidding
Choosing to be a bigot is symptomatic of being an asshole.
Unfortunately, many people on SoH seem to be afflicted with that particular kind of "illness" ;)
There's no doubt. Only the mentally disturbed would get naked, in public, and perform sex acts, in front of children, or support such behavior.
Mental illness. You pollsters keep on using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. I find it inconceivable.
Yes. At least a self-image disorder.
Disorder? That's a very fashionable disorder then.
Rota, i don't know a better word, though I'm sure there is one. What I'm getting at is a poor or inaccurate self-image that makes the individual think he's made "differently," just because he experiences transitory same-sex ideations. If he had a
strong and caring father/father figure in his life, maybe he could ask for reassurance, receive it, and grow up "normal," i.e. heterosexual. I don't know this for sure, but it's my best theory. Help me out, Rota, since I value your opinion.
The father figure bullshit is a 50 year old idea and, just that, bullshit. There's zero evidence that's true whatsoever.
My father figure was more aggressive and spanked me a lot when I was little for playing with dolls. He was definitely a father figure just to this day I'm still kinda pissed he took my Barbies.
"Transitory same-sex ideations" isn't homosexuality and it also doesn't have anything to do with with what you call a self-image disorder. (Which, by the way, isn't a thing.)
iBakes, I readily admit that I don't know all the proper terminology. I only majored in Psychology for a year before switching to Music. So my terminology is a dart thrown at the dartboard in a dark room in the vain hope of even hitting the board.
Regardless your terminology use, it still doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
NO....it's a SIN just like adultery, fornication, Incest, PEDOPHILIA, etc.
pride is a sin, so is lying, drunkeness, missing church, and gluttony.
According to the Bible no sin is worse than another so if you're going to say homosexuality is a sin then if you partake in any other sin you are just as bad.
I've always wondered what people mean by "no sin is worse than any other". Does that mean that stealing a chocolate bar is as bad as genocide? Where is the Biblical support for that?
Trepid....what verse are you referring to?
Missing church is a sin??
Why are you so excited about pedophilia?
Haha well the ultimate Christian sin guidebook (a.k.a The Ten Commandments) doesn't exactly Rank the sins by 'most importance' so there's that. By the way, that's in both Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Missing church is not a sin.
Trep - although your point makes a good deal of sense, very few sins are referred to as "abominations" to God. This word carries the connotation of a foul, offensive stench which so offends God that it was singled out from among other sins for
extreme punishment designed to wipe out a sin completely from among God's people. Homosexual "intercourse" was such a sin, because it was a mockery of real sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It is the substitution of a foul, sewage-ridden
excretory exit for a self-cleaning, Divinely-designed sexual entrance organ which is highly-regarded enough to also be employed as the birth canal through which we all enter into the world. All the ano-rectal area brings into the world is foul,
unclean waste. This fact creates an automatic, reflexive natural revulsion towards this part of the body which, one must assume, must be deliberately fought or somehow ignored to allow the homosexual "consummation" to occur once or habitually.
This is why it's "so different from other sins."
Menstruation is disgusting, probably as disgusting as shit. I don't see how "ew that's icky" is an excuse to consider homosexuality an incredibly evil sin.
I say it's no better or worse than any other sexual sin, but sexual sins are all serious. Sure, all are enough to make you imperfect and separate you from God, so all are equal that way, but some have more serious consequences than others.
That's why God ordained stricter punishments for some sins than others.
iBakes, that's why God ordained a period of "uncleanness" for a (Jewish) woman each month when she should not be approached sexually. But people don't only poop one week out of four. Hence the distinction. Oh, plus the fact that the Jews believed
that blood = life, then menstruation would necessarily be "cleaner" than fecal matter, which, in a healthy person, contains no blood, and thus (reaching a bit) poop = death, not life (the ultimate death of the animals we have eaten). Not my belief,
just trying to interpret OT laws. Does it make any more sense now?
I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying it's stupid and logically nonsensical.
iBakes: Do you mean to say that the sexual union designed as being between a man and a woman is stupid and nonsensical?
The idea that homosexuality is wrong because anal sex is "gross" doesn't make any sense coming from the guy praising vaginas, given that "gross stuff" comes out of vaginas too.
Even with his impure week comment, people don't typically have anal sex with somebody who is in the process of shitting - it's not like it's wildly different from vaginal sex.
Sex is sex. People have been having vaginal and anal sex for much longer than Christianity has existed. Claiming homosexuality is an evil sin because anal sex is "eeww icky" is completely stupid.
Correct. Being "icky" has nothing to do with it. Because it is both destructive to the individual and society as a whole God has deemed it an Abomination. You cannot grasp this because you are spiritually dead.
It's not destructive to an individual or society, and you don't have any evidence to prove me wrong. Sorry, nice try.
why do people compare homosexuality to pedophilia?? like. GROSSSSSS.
It's not about being "icky", it's about being contrary to the design of human sexuality. "Sex is sex" implies that all sex acts are the same. This is not true biologically or teleologically.
It's not contrary to human sexuality, people both straight & gay derive pleasure from anal sex.
Do you mean to imply, "If it feels good, do it?" Because all kinds of things that are contrary to the design of sexuality feel good, at least to some people.
No, I'm telling you that your statement about anal sex being contrary to human sexuality is incorrect.
It's not so much anal sex (although that union is, at best, atypical), but moreso same gender unions that are contrary to the design of sexuality.
No, it's really not. I don't think sexuality means what you think it means.
And I think the same about you. As usual we agree to disagree. What's great about this country is that, at least for now, we can still do that. I just dislike when people try to force their views of sexuality on me, as I'm sure you do as well.
You're literally misusing the term, this isn't about differing opinions. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
I never used the term opinion. I believe that you are factually wrong, as though you are arguing for pi= 2.4. You think the same about me. So be it. That's my point.
Glock, those facts may be true, but the article is misleading at best and propaganda at worst. It's more accurate to say that sexual morality is the fuel for HIV, and leave it at that.
*sexual IMMORALITY is fuel for HIV.
Lfb, no, you're very literally incorrect here. This isn't anything to "agree to disagree on" unless your stance is to disagree with a definition. I urge you to educate yourself on what sexuality is then apply that new knowledge to this conversation.
Glock, that link isn't reality. Or based on facts. Or logical.
Doopy: Yes! Thanks for correcting my typo.
iBakes: I'm plenty educated on sexuality, thanks. I'd urge the same for you. See how we keep going around in circles?
OK...how about a link from a PROCTOLOGIST....who does this for a living? www.proctology.us/analsex.php
Lfb, the difference between you & I is that you have zero grasp on what you're talking about or how to relate sexuality to this conversation...or what sexuality is. Nice try sweetheart.
Glock guess what, most of those kinds of health hazards exist in vaginal sex too. Your link doesn't prove anything here, sorry.
I know enough to know that your logic is nonsensical. Risks do indeed exist for vaginal sex, but they are several fold less than anal sex. It's a matter of relative risk. Calling them the same is like comparing climbing stairs to mountain climbing.
And being condescending doesn't help your point, particularly when it's to someone with a postgraduate biology degree and an undergraduate philosophy degree. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your liberal worldview, but that doesn't make me uneducated.
A person with a Ph.D. who knows what sexuality is, unlike you.
Notification galore over here.
I'm done with Miss Priss. Sorry, cheese.
IBAKES....living in denial of the TRUTH is no way to live. You deny it because your SIN has consumed your life and now you have become a slave to it. it controls you to the point of depression. You NEED JESUS.
No, I don't need a character in a fictional book. But according to your beliefs, all that judgment and hate you harbor will afford you a first class ticket to hell. Enjoy! Being presumptuous makes you look like an ass! Bye!
"Divinely-designed sexual entrance organ" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
You might be a little old school Tom, but many happily married straight couples engage in anal sex. Who are you to pass judgment on the happiness of strangers?
Lmfao I love seeing ibakes school people. The rest of you make me ashamed to be a Christian. What is wrong with Christians on this app?!
Are you even one?
Why would you question someone's faith? Is that up to your judgment? This is what I mean...Christians in this thread give Christians a bad name.
Why would you question another's faith? Sounds a whole lot like what you just did.
HAWKEYES....share with me about the day Christ became your Savior. How did this come about?
Sounds like what you just did, too, Hawkeyes. Just a bit of turnabout.
I'm not sure I agree with tlaney and GlockMan about WHY homosexuality is sinful, but neither understanding that it is a sin, nor explaining why gives Christians a bad name.
As you can see by reading...I never questioned anyone's faith.
There's your problem hawkeyes, don't expect this crowd to have reading comprehension skills.
What is wrong with Christians on this app???
Well, I'm comfortable questioning whether people actually are Christian or not.
Regardless if you can't see the parallels between the idea that by standing up for orthodoxy, people are giving Christianity a bad name, and questioning someone's faith, I think you need to think through what you just accused a little better.
Maybe you should read that again hawk. How does that come off? Wrong with Christians? Makes it sound like they aren't Christians....
DOOPY....1 Corinthians 7:2
Relax, GlockMan, I'm on your side.
No it doesn't. Calling someone a bad Christian is still calling them a Christian. It says so right in the sentence.
But what you're calling bad is Christian orthodoxy. You call orthodoxy into question, I call your Christianity into question. Turnabout. Fair play.
See, hawkeyes? Told ya haha
iBakes, the deficiency here is in your philosophical comprehension, not my reading comprehension.
No one here even came close to a philosophical comment, even miss I took philosophy classes as an undergrad. Chill doopy, you & your buds were rightfully called out. Don't be all butthurt about it.
Let me spell it out for you then: There is a teleology behind humanity. The human body reflects this. Human sexuality reflects this. And it's clear the male/female union is central to sexuality. This is true biologically. It's true anatomically.
It's true teleologically. It's simply true. It's hard to believe that I'm having to argue for what I leaned in 5th grade sex ed, namely what goes where, and yet here we are. You'll counter with "But people can do other things with their sex organs!"
Of course they can. You can stick any appendage into any orifice but that doesn't mean that things were designed to work that way.
This is elementary, really, and it's ridiculous that I have to spell it out. The fact that you find my explanation so unorthodox is telling.
Good night all!
"No one here even came close to a philosophical comment, even miss I took philosophy classes as an undergrad."
Ooh wow, so that gave you magical never wrong powers, huh?
Practically all my comments here have been philosophical.
Let me spell this out for you: you stated "same gender unions...are contrary to the design of sexuality." This is false. Why? Sexuality: a) expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive b) sexual activity
So, no, we were not rightfully called out, but called out as we were, I now intend to make Hawkeyes defend that action.
How does defending Christian orthodoxy make one a bad Christian?
c) an organism's preparedness in engaging in sexual activity d) recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters e) sexual character.
If you still don't understand now I don't know how to help you.
iBakes didn't win anything, Hawkeyes. She is not engaging the argument. She ignored the (crucial) word "design".
I majored in English in college!!! Let me tell you how special I am!!!!!
You just have a hard time with the concept, doopy.
Lol yes she did
I have a hard time with all non sequiturs, iBakes. Doesn't detract from my case nor my character.
"Lol yes she did"
Cowboy is the definition of mental illness! He is just angry because he can't find anyone, female or male, to be a romantic interest.
It used to be classified that way but it was changed a few decades ago. But "experts" keep saying eggs are bad, then good. As science and knowledge grows, we must be open to going back and reevaluating all things. Without bias or prejudice.
People like Cowboy are a plague to all rational and decent people.
Definitely not. Though I'm not surprised coming from cowboy. If the only problem the person faces is bullying, then other people are the issue.
Doesn't the DSM have something to say about this?
Yes, it is no longer ruled by prejudice, and as such, it is no longer a mental illness.
What does it say?
That it's not a mental illness, it was removed sometime in the 80s. You should check out how they decide if something is an illness- quite fascinating.
aj: Aside from taking a vote, how is it decided? I'm curious.
It's just a voting process.
Yukon: it's not. There is a set of specific criteria a condition (cluster if symptoms) must meet to be considered a mental disorder. It's been awhile since abnormal psych, but something like considering danger to others, ability to function,
Discomfort from symptoms to the person having them, and whether the symptoms are caused internally or externally
And @lft- it's something like the process I explained to yukon, though I'd like to find a source better than my memory :)
Also, there are multiple editions of the DSM. It's periodically updated given new research, treatment results etc.
It's a voting process which means it's controlled by political correctness. And homosexual-related illnesses are still in there so that insurance companies will have to pay for treatments. They're just described in a very PC manner.
Lol show me that entry. Homosexuality isn't in there anymore. It's more complicated than what you're saying, not simply a vote. Why don't you look up some info?
Don't change what I said. I said homosexuality-related illnesses. They've separated the symptoms from the underlying cause to accommodate the lifestyle. Body Dysmorphic Disorder is one of the several related illnesses that are in the DSM to replace
what used to be just "homosexuality." This makes the liberals happy because it's PC and it still allows the homosexuals to get their therapies paid for by the insurance companies. And it is just a voting game.
It isn't related to your sexual orientation, you are talking about a gender identity disorder. It staying in the DSM isn't about being PC, it's because gender identity problems inherently cause discomfort to the person with them while being gay
Causes no discomfort when bullying is taken away.
There are criteria to meet for a disorder to be included, it's not simply a vote or based on whim.
No, it's not mental illness but it's something. I've read studies that show it's possibly related to the chemicals released while the pregnant mother is under extreme stress. One day they might figure it out. Until then, it doesn't matter.
I don't think it's a mental ILLNESS. Illness implies it can be cured in some way. Maybe abnormality would be a better word if it didn't have such a negative stigma attached to it. Gays are born gay and there's nothing you can do to change it.
So homosexuality isn't a choice?
Does that surprise you?
Yes, in that you think homosexuality is not a choice, yet you think it's a sin. How can a sin be involuntary?
Being attracted to the same sex and acting upon that attraction are two different things.
So you're just supposed to live a lonely miserable life?
Derek- so homosexual thoughts aren't sinful?
Not at all. You can do whatever you wish to do so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. If your religious beliefs conflict with your actions, then you still have the ability to make that choice. For my religious beliefs, which are
Christian, then I believe that Christ died for my (and everyone else's) sins, including gays. This includes gay thoughts, gay acts, etc. So, while it still is a sin, you are not condemned to Hell for being gay.
If one can do whatever he or she wishes to do as long as his or her actions don't infringe upon the rights of others, why are you against gay marriage?
And I I'll ask again: are homosexual thoughts sinful?
I'm against government recognition of all marriage. Government has no business defining, recognizing, or regulating marriage.
I already answered that. Yes, they are a sin that can be instantly forgiven by simply asking for it.
So, homosexual thoughts are not voluntary, yet are sinful? Is that what we are saying here?
Are you saying you don't have control over your own thoughts?
homosexuality is an attraction and sexual attraction consists of thoughts ("wow that man is attractive"), and you previously stated homosexuality was not a choice. Urges are thoughts too, yet you said if one doesn't act on then they aren't sinning.
You're a straight man right?
Yes. I don't see how that's relevant. Should I prepare for an ad-hominem?
It's to prove a point. Now as a straight man, you find women attractive. Thinking a woman is beautiful and thinking you want to bend her over the hood of your car and have your way with her are two different things. Now also as a straight man, I'm
certain you have also looked at another man and judged his appearance. Even if it's for things like "Man, I'd love to get ripped like him." That by its very definition says that you think he is an attractive man or has attractive qualities. That
doesn't mean you want to suck him off in a back alley.
So Derek, you've never had a sexual thought whatsoever without first wanting to have that thought?
If you're asking if I've ever seen a woman and had a sexual thought about her, yes I have and it is no more or less sinful than a gay man thinking that about another man.
I agree that it's not a choice but there is minimal evidence that it is set at birth. Sexual orientation is likely a complex phenotype that has multiple social inputs.
Really? When was the elusive GAY GENE discovered that makes people born that way.
Where is the elusive straight gene that makes people born that way?
Derek- we might disagree on the existence of sin in the first place, but nonetheless I can see that you are consistent, and that your views on homosexuality are as well. I respect consistency. You have pleasantly surprised me.
Well thanks drooski. I'd be willing to bet you'd be surprised by a lot of conservitarians.
Meh. I don't think so. But that's why they'll be surprises if they happen, right? :-)
Derek...There us no GAY GENE just as their is no straight gene. GOD created all if us heterosexuals. It is A CHOICE to engage in homosexuality just like it is a choice to engage in adultery, prostitution, Incest, pedophilia.
So I take it you've never seen a male dog hump another male dog? I mean, it's a choice right? So the dog has the mental cognizance to comprehend the choice of humping another male dog?
I'm laughing because I think it's funny that questions like that still even need to be asked. That's ridiculous.
Really, Republicans? This is why we can't have nice things.
That's because the true republicans have all the nice things transferred to the caymans.
No, but I sometimes think heterosexuality has caused me to act as if I was mentally incapacitated.
Cowboy thinks everything is a mental illness.
Well, he's right in that liberalism is definitely a mental illness.
I guess USA's inability to understand what a mental illness is applies to its usage on all topics, not just homosexuality.
Michele Bachmann is the most sane person I know.
Hey it's whatever sounds good today, it was considered a mental illness until when the 70's or early 80's? But you know science could change all that if new evidence is found.
DSMI was mostly for psychiatric hospital worthy illnesses, the DSMII (1952) was more inclusive and included homosexuality even though researchers were finding no issues with homosexuality. Then in a reprint of the DSMII in the 70s it was taken out.
Saying "it used to be a mental illness!!" doesn't mean what you think It does. Especially since in the short, relative to modern history of DSM, time it was included, it was a "sociopathic personality disturbance" aka someone who disregards others...
...or has a poor sense of morals. It was classified as a mental disorder because people thought homosexuality was immoral. Because of that, studies were framed in ways to look for any potential problem (like the infamous opposite sex parent fear)...
...and the results were used to supposedly show sociopathic tendencies in homosexuals.
So I would suggest you change your poll response from yes to no, because homosexuality is not a mental illness. Even the past classification was ridiculous.
Yeah I can read too! It will change again it always does! psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Ibakes you take me foe someone that cares about it one way or the other. I don't give a damned about what 2 people do in private. I find the behavior similar to my distaste for creamed corn or liver it's gross but hey wanker on!
"It always does!" You mean once? How is the removal an indication that certain sexual orientations will be classified as a disorder again?
Over centuries, you think right now humans actually know the answers to everything? Science says homosexuality is genetic but is it a genetic disorder like being born with webbed feet or 6 fingers? Can it be fixed by altering the DNA of a person?
No, people do not know everything & no, science doesn't say homosexuality is genetic. Either way neither of those things are indications that homosexuality will be classified as a disorder again. Saying its a mental illness because it was...
...classified as such for a couple decades despite conflicting evidence is like saying blood-letting is an efficient treatment method because it used to be used.
Well there is this...
To summarize: "Genes examined in study are not sufficient or necessary to make men gay but do play some role in sexuality, say US researchers"
Which proves the point that it's ever evolving, just like Obama, and no one knows for sure.
I'll ask again, how is the removal an indication that certain sexual orientations will be classified as a disorder again?
That blog doesn't apply to this conversation.
Here, I can post links too. www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I'm just saying a couple of generations of us were taught that homosexuals had a mental disorder. Then it was in the genetic makeup. Now it's nurture, nature so like I said prior...I don't care! I really don't, I don't care what anyone says.
Close to nothing is just "nurture" or just "nature."
The point is that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Saying "well, 50 years ago it was classified as one!" isn't an excuse for calling it a mental illness now. It's 2014.
And ibakes I didn't say it would be changed to show a disorder hell for all I know because humans are so fucked up maybe we are all supposed to be gay so we don't reproduce. Maybe just maybe being straight is an illness but guess what! IDFC!
You just like to argue I said it has evolved, I also said it will continue to evolve, remember?
Did you not read any of my comments? Good lord.
I did but guess what you aren't an approved peer reviewed scientist whom I know or trust.
I have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and publish in both the clinical psychology and neuroscience domains. Just FYI.
Good for you! Did I say I thought it was a mental disorder today? No, like most people I have evolved with my thinking. I do however have my own life experiences. I had a female cousin who was gay. She was mistreated by her father and hated men. I
also knew a guy that absolutely hated his mother. She dominated every aspect of his life, he was gay also. So if it's not genetic are you saying nurture has nothing to do with it either?
1) Neither of those cases are evidence that any of that caused homosexuality. Or causality at all. 2) In science you need a lot more than an anecdotal story. 3) I never said that "nature" & "nurture" had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
I normally try to avoid discussions about homosexuality just because I'm sick of the politics of it all. Then there is the politically correct way to discuss and think about it. It has no impact in my life other then being force fed a daily diet of
gays on TV or magazines. I'll be glad when it's considered mainstream so like straights it won't be the focus of media.
I'm sure it will be, when gay people are treated like straight people.
No more than heterosexuality is.
Of course not.
"A mental disorder...is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability)." By definition, no, it isn't.
Cowboy and the word inspiration should never be used in the same sentence.
I would like to hear someone's yes argument that has some actual logic behind it, no bias bs
You'll be waiting a longggggg time for an answer, then. Ha.
There won't ever be an answer
Yes and No. No if you're born homosexual you don't have a mental illness. Yes if you deal with tea partiers or radical Christians a lot then you probably have already went crazy.
It very literally is not.
I could have sworn that in the last poll on this that you said yes....hmmmm
ugh Tennessee are you the Tennessee vote for "yes"? *barfs*. I didn't think you were cowboy-level ignorant, USA.
Then you're very very mistaken. Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Drooski...disagreeing with you is not ignorant. But we could talk about the arrogance of the left.
"I'm not ignorant I swear and the reason is because the other side sucks."
Disagreeing with me is not ignorant. Disagreeing with the definition of mental illness is.
The question is not what is the definition of mental illness.
And ibakes, I have an extremely good memory.
"The question is not what is the definition of mental illness".
"Is red a color?"
"The definition of color is ____"
"The question is not what is the definition of color".
K. If you have such a good memory, go back to where I said homosexuality is a mental illness and show it to me. I'll wait.
USA. Do you believe mental illnesses are choices? I'm just curious cause I'm pretty sure you think homosexuality is a choice. If homosexuality is a choice AND a mental illness, yet mental illnesses aren't choices... I mean.
Ibakes, I don't have time in my life for scrolling through hundreds of polls. The day SOH gets a word search shall be interesting.
Drooski, I think part choice, part not. Mental, hormonal and/or a combination of many things.
But ultimately, homosexuality is not some top of the ladder unpardonable sin.
If homosexuality is partly a choice, is it only partly a sin?
I don't appreciate you falsely stating my views on something, especially on an issue like this. Please don't ever do it again.
And I believe not getting help for mental illness is a choice in many cases.
If a young boy is sexually abused by a man and goes on to be gay, yes I think there is a mental illness component that is the result of bring victimized.
LateGreat SOH does have a search option...
But dawl, it is difficult to find something that doesn't exist even with a search option. ;)
Oh I know Bakes, I just didn't want him to use it as an excuse. Search away!!
*being not bring
"If a young boy is sexually abused by a man and goes on to be gay, yes I think there is a mental illness component that is the result of bring victimized."
Ibakes : surely you read the "I think" part.
But here you go:
"Otago University researcher associate professor Elisabeth Wells has looked at the connection between adverse childhood events and sexuality and found those who experienced trauma were significantly more likely to be non-heterosexual."
Dawl, I'm not a him. :/ I didn't know SOH had that featured. I will definitely check it out.
That's doesn't mean abuse is a cause, like you stated. Where is evidence that being abused causes homosexuality?
I bakes, obviously, it doesn't it all cases.
But sexual abuse of children, rape, date rape etc does cause mental issues of various types in many people.
There isn't evidence abuse causes homosexuality in ANY cases, is my point.
Yes, abuse can lead to mental health issues, but that's an issue completely separate of homosexuality or even sexual orientation in general.
Read: "Otago University researcher associate professor Elisabeth Wells has looked at the connection between adverse childhood events and sexuality and found those who experienced trauma were significantly more likely to be non-heterosexual"
I'll repeat myself, those findings didn't mention anything about causality. That study did not show abuse causes homosexuality.
I'll wait for you to find evidence to back up your claim. No rush.
Ibakes. No thanks. Enough with the browbeating.
I can see why it's difficult and time consuming for you to find the evidence, given it doesn't exist. Just like comments where I stated homosexuality is a mental illness don't exist. Have a good day!
Late that could be for any number of reasons, including they were victimized for being different. Correlation does not equal causation.
Haha SM...annoying liberals is never a fail.
And when I feel like typing more, I will state my full views. They're not as radical as you think.
You already said homosexuality is a mental illness. Fuck your "full opinion". That's enough for me to know your full opinion is shit.
And you're a rude jackass with no respect for other views. Bye bye
Yep. I don't respect idiotic, illogical, and homophobic views that gays have mental illnesses just like I don't respect idiotic, illogical, and racist views that blacks are an inferior race. Sorry if that hurts your irrelevant feelings. Bye bye.
Aww I see you blocked me. Funny. I seem to recall you and your daddies cowboy and scotty mocking Stiletto for blocking people who don't agree with her. All *I've* seen is *you* doing that. Have a great day, dumbass.
USA, you aren't "annoying liberals" - you're spewing bullshit & lack the ability to back any of it up with anything factual. Every time you're asked for facts or an elaboration you suddenly don't have any time (yet you're still commenting elsewhere).
It's kind of pathetic, the way you approach things. I have zero respect for people who can't even make an attempt to give a logical or factual basis for opinions. Even less respect for people who lie in the process, which you have done twice here.