Aineo wrote:path·o·log·i·cal (p th -l j -k l) or path·o·log·ic (- k)
adj.
Of or relating to pathology.
Relating to or caused by disease.
I agree that homosexuality is not pathological since homosexuality is not a disease. However homosexual behavior can be pathological in the same sense as alcoholism, gambling addiction, sexual addiction, and/or any other treatable condition that is labeled pathological in psychiatric terms. So homosexuality can be both a pathology and not pathological.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there! You completely presume that homosexuality is as pathological as addiction, which is totally unsupported. Homosexuality is not an addiction just like how heterosexuality is not an addiction. You have absolutely ZERO evidence of such an awful presumption and I would suggest you rethink what homosexuality means.
As to my statement concerning the number of ex-gays in our society, since not all men, women, and teens who have dealt with this condition have ever come out you cannot dispute that teens with ego dystonic homosexuality did not come to terms with their heterosexual identity and are in fact ex-gay. The millions might be an over statement but if only 3% of the 3% who are gblt in the U.S. are ex-gay there comes to about 235,000.
Huh??? You're saying homosexual persons don't come to terms with their 'heterosexual' identity? Where in the world did you dig this up?
Your opinions concerning when a person should come out is only your opinion. I have a different opinion backed up my emails and prior research.
That's nice. But you still accused me of forcing teens to come out when I condoned no such actions. What a way to avoid my highlight of your false accusations and assumptions.
As to reparative therapy, that is not the only form ex-gay counseling can take. And in spite of your bigoted refusal to accept that ex-gays do exist you should read something besides those who support your position and who refuse to admit that homosexuality is not genetic and therefore is not innate or immutable. You might like to check out this page on Dr. Throckmorton’s site:
What is reparative therapy?
I'm well aware of what reparative therapy is. What's dangerous about it is that the therapist makes presumptions about homosexuality without question, most of which have been discredited by major medical associations.
Within all this rhetoric preaching of ex-gays you make, you have yet to provide me evidence of the effectiveness of reparative therapy and that innateness equates to immutability. Why is it so hard for you to accomplish such a simple task?
Camperio-Ciani’s study concluded:
But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.
This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”
Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004)
Do you know what it takes to show how a gene affects an individual? Check out this Internet site:
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
A gay supporter posted the Camperio-Ciani’s study as
proof that homosexuality is genetic, only he failed to read the whole study. You are not the first gay to insist that sexual orientation cannot be changed. As to what you have posted concerning ex-gays, it is nothing but hateful rhetoric that you cannot prove, and all of it is based on the pronouncement of a professional organization that allowed activists and politics to influence their decision and the “testimonies” of ex-ex-gays who did not reach their stated goals.
Hateful? I did not claim that sexual orientation cannot be changed. I said that there is little evidence that it can be. On the other hand, you have provided no evidence that it can be. You continually use the tactic of using Camperio's inconclusive research to somehow conclude that sexual orientation is innate. Then, you claim that because it is innate, that it can be changed, without A.) sufficiently showing how Camperio's inconclusive studies show that homosexuality is innate, B.) sufficiently arguing that innateness equates to immutability, and C.) showing any evidence of ex-gay groups' claims to success.
You claim that homosexuality is innate, immutable and feasibly changed when you have hardly made a single convincing case for ANY of these points. In fact, the most convincing thing you've ever produced was Camperio's study which is inconclusive at best. You then make a whole lot of assumptions to get to your conclusion that 'homosexuality can be feasibly changed'. Can you do any better?
Now, you have not furnished any empirical information that homosexuality is innate.
I have no need to. It is not my concern whether homosexuality is innate. Even if it were a choice (which there is hardly any evidence for), I would still be a homosexual for the sake of my loving boyfriend. It is your position that homosexuality is innate, and your attempts to make a convincing case is rather disappointing.
All you have done is object to the ex-gay movement with unproven rhetoric from biased sources.
Your statement is a
non-sequitur. Rhetoric isn't proven or unproven. It is a form of language, not a practice or claim.
If homosexuality is not genetic then it is not innate. Even personality that has a genetic component is not cut in stone. People can change their personality, which is one aspect of changing sexual orientation.
More claims, which you have failed to adequately argue for. Aineo, you should try to defend your original claims before you venture out and make more baseless presumptions such as your implication of a direct correlation between personality and sexual orientation.
I have already covered your first point by appealing to the APA’s definition of pathological behavior. So if any group is contradicting itself it is the APA.
Wrong. The APA does not define homosexuality as a pathological behavior. It is you who define it as some form of pathological addiction like alcoholism and then assume the APA uses the same definition and accuse them of contradicting themselves.