dalaman:


Is there any scientific study that show that gays are mentally ill?

read this report.

NovemberAmerican Psychologist(Vol. 56, No. 11)

vaxx:
This is a report on how it begin on how WPA arrived at that figure. .http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

In 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically andsocially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.

In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexualityfrom the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions.

This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.

There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

I think the fact that in 1974 (43 years ago) psychologists decided it was not a mental disorder should tell you the view is outdated.

The change was triggered by a greater awareness if facts regarding homosexuality:

-There was no evidence that being homosexual affected the ability of homosexuals to function in society.

-There was no evidence that being homosexual prevented them from performing day to day tasks.

-Personal discomfort about being gay came from anti homosexual discrimination rather than homosexuality itself

-Homosexuality did not respond to any treatment chemical, behavioural or otherwise.

In short it did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DSM. It's inclusion was not supported by facts.

vaxx:
read this report.

NovemberAmerican Psychologist(Vol. 56, No. 11)

Just show the part of the report that says gays are mentally ill.

LightandDarkness:



I think the fact that in 1974 (43 years ago) psychologists decided it was not a mental disorder should tell you the view is outdated.

The change was triggered by a greater awareness if facts regarding homosexuality:

-There was no evidence that being homosexual affected the ability of homosexuals to function in society.

-There was no evidence that being homosexual prevented them from performing day to day tasks.

-Personal discomfort about being gay came from anti homosexual discrimination rather than homosexuality itself

-Homosexuality did not respond to any treatment chemical, behavioural or otherwise.

In short it did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DSM. It's inclusion was not supported by facts.

it seems you do no read to digest. the purpose of removing it from DSM was not base on scientific evidence. it was base on campaign raised by the gays and lesbian Union. aggressive movement.

DSM had recognize it as mental disorder for more than a decade.

The decision to remove it was not scientific but political as the report shows and to publicly labelled it as a mental disorder will go against human right.


the mental disorder had formerly be given recognition at first. patients are diagnosed and are cured. many specialist hospital offer treatment.

UK to be specific.

Imagine going to your Brother's wedding expecting to see the beautiful bride that he's going to wed only to find out that the bride is a guy. How is that morally right?

vaxx:
This is a report on how it begin on how WPA arrived at that figure. .http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

In 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically andsocially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.

In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexualityfrom the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions.

This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.

There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

Do you know the difference between scientific paper and opinion article?

felixomor:
Dear Op

Homosexuality is one of the topics that brings out the hypocrisy of the so called "science advocates" who only quote science when they want to fight religion.

Firstly, homosexuality has been directly linked with so many diseases that has decimated human existence:
From HIV/Aids to Cancers of the Rectum, Mouth, Anus, Cervix, Human Papilloma Virus transmission etc
This alone is enough to oppose it
But all of a sudden, the so called science advocates have gone numb and silent.

Secondly, the rise of radical homosexuals who now claim they are born gay or with homosexuality in their genes is an insult to science itself.
As a result, some people now also claim they are born without gender
Last year John Hopkins Hospital a leading research institution came out with a study that cancelled that notion
The radical homosexuals even went as far as threatening John Hopkins scholars because of that study
This is shameful.

Despite these insults, the so called science advocates have gone loudly quiet on homosexuality.

Some even claim that homosexuality is observable among lower animals, and as a result its normal.
That is Another Insult
In same fallacious manner, We could as well say Cannibalism is normal, because we observe it among lower animals too.

In summary, homosexuality is bringing out the hypocrisy of many people who have claimed to be science advocates all the while.
Many only become "scientific" when they want to oppose religion.

To be candid, people are born gay. But all in all, it is a choice.

Chinachriss:


To be candid, people are born gay. But all in all, it is a choice.

Nobody is born gay.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/

felixomor:


Nobody is born gay.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/

Nobody is born gay and your evidence for that is a rpaper that isn't peer reviewed which parts of it was disagreed on by the main person that conducted the study which the authors relied upon. Did Felixmoron actually read the link he posted?

From the link:

"However, the authors stress that the lack of scientific evidence does not mean sexual orientation and gender identity are choices".

The author of the paper shows his confusion here by saying this:
‌
“I’m not suggesting the statement [that gay and transgender people are ‘born that way’] is false,” Dr. Mayer, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, told The Washington Times. “I’m[b] saying there isn’t enough scientific evidence to support the statement.[/b]”

But he was countered by someone else:


Sarah McBride, national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, said The New Atlantis report is another instance in which Dr. McHugh espouses “his own personal prejudice against LGBTQ people.”

“His latest essay runs contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the medical community and would crumble if held up to any scrutiny, which is probably why he chose a publication that is not a peer-reviewed scientific journa[/b]l,” Ms. McBride said. “Despite McHugh’s obsession with attacking LGBTQ people, [b]neither he nor his co-author have ever published an actual research article on gender or sexuality in a scientific journal.”

Even the person who the report cites disagrees with some of their claims.

"The report cites several studies by J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who has studied the concordance rate of sexual orientation in twins extensively".

Mr. Bailey said he agrees and disagrees with various aspects of the Mayer-McHugh report. He said the notion of fluid sexuality is plausible for women, but pointed to his own research demonstrating that sexuality is more fixed in men.

dalaman:


[s]Nobody is born gay and your evidence for that is a rpaper that isn't peer reviewed which parts of it was disagreed on by the main person that conducted the study which the authors relied upon. Did Felixmoron actually read the link he posted?

From the link:

"However, the authors stress that the lack of scientific evidence does not mean sexual orientation and gender identity are choices".

The author of the paper shows his confusion here by saying this:
‌
“I’m not suggesting the statement [that gay and transgender people are ‘born that way’] is false,” Dr. Mayer, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, told The Washington Times. “I’m[b] saying there isn’t enough scientific evidence to support the statement.[/b]”

But he was countered by someone else:


Sarah McBride, national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, said The New Atlantis report is another instance in which Dr. McHugh espouses “his own personal prejudice against LGBTQ people.”

“His latest essay runs contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the medical community and would crumble if held up to any scrutiny, which is probably why he chose a publication that is not a peer-reviewed scientific journa[/b]l,” Ms. McBride said. “Despite McHugh’s obsession with attacking LGBTQ people, [b]neither he nor his co-author have ever published an actual research article on gender or sexuality in a scientific journal.”

Even the person who the report cites disagrees with some of their claims.

"The report cites several studies by J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who has studied the concordance rate of sexual orientation in twins extensively".

Mr. Bailey said he agrees and disagrees with various aspects of the Mayer-McHugh report. He said the notion of fluid sexuality is plausible for women, but pointed to his own research demonstrating that sexuality is more fixed in men.[/s]

There are numerous other studies that confirm too.
Including the famous one from John Hopkins.
So. Dont waste time

felixomor:


There are numerous other studies that confirm too.
Including the famous one from John Hopkins.
So. Dont waste time

Shut up!

dalaman:


Shut up!

Hehehe. Are you pained?
Eiya sorry to burst your homosexuality bubble

felixomor:


Hehehe. Are you pained?
Eiya sorry to burst your homosexuality bubble

Which imaginary bubble did this closet she-male lover burst?

dalaman:


Which imaginary bubble did this closet she-male lover burst?

The one i just busted above
Look up

felixomor:


The one i just busted above
Look up

Look up at something imaginary abi? I don't have time to look up at your inane imaginations Mr closet she-male lover.

dalaman:


Look up at something imaginary abi? I don't have time to look up at your inane imaginations Mr closet she-male lover.

Eiya. Sorry for the pain

if you are a Christian then you should consider what God said about homosexual acts
if u r a Christian then u have to try and resist those acts
just as if you were a thief, u would have to try and resist stealing

if u r not a Christian then u may not care about what God said



Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.

(Rom 1:26) For this reason God allowed their shameful passions to control them. Their women have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
(Rom 1:27) Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion.
(Rom 1:28) And because they thought it was worthless to acknowledge God, God allowed their own immoral minds to control them. So they do these indecent things.



2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

felixomor:


Eiya. Sorry for the pain

The one you are imagining abi? Well done.