I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.

I know people here are very open minded and I would like to know what your views on the subject are.

Is homosexuality a mental illness?
For it to be an illness, it would have to be of harmful effect, and homosexuality is certainly not harmful to one's health, it just greatly lessens the chances of having offspring.
I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.
The American Psychological Association does not cite it as an illness, nor do they find (through their studies) that it can be changed.

It is not a choice, it is natural, and attempts to "change" the person will likely result in their suicide or depression.

We like what we like, and the heart wants what it wants.

Sexuality (and sexual preference) is no more a disease than is love. Or anger. Or compassion.

Trying to 'cure' homosexuality makes about as much sense as does 'curing' me of my love for my wife. Or my beer.

We were told growing up that masturbation was a sin, and that you would go blind and/or grow hair in your palms if you kept it up.
The adults in the position of authority in my life at that time (the Catholic nuns and community leaders) had set a social standard for us, and masturbation was clearly a sin and an immoral impulse that we needed to be 'cured' of.

Someone who holds the position that being a Rump Ranger or a Sturdy Sally is a sin, would so also naturally want to set a social standard for the rest of us, and clearly this immoral impulse toward same-sex love and same-sex humping & grinding is something that can simply be cured.

I disagree obviously.
We prefer what we prefer, and the heart wants what it wants.

Senor Sparquelito
Clear-eyed and hairless-palmed (in spite of my shameless habit of occasionally masturbating) since 1973.

PS Now you BI-SEXUAL folks have got it going on!
Kudos to you for having hearts big enough to love everybody.
:thumbs:

It is not a mental illness, no.
I don't believe there are any reputable studies done by reputable scientists or resarchers in the field that indicate this is so.

I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.
================================================== ===

I am hetrosexual, I have known many homosexual people. I do not believe their sexual preference was an illness to be recovered from.

P.S. I do believe one can recover from the prejudices of Christianity.

I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.

I know people here are very open minded and I would like to know what your views on the subject are.
The APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973, and the Kinsey Reports concluded that a great deal of the population has had a homosexual encounter at some point. To be quite honest, I'm surprised that someone short of Jerry Falwell still believes in that nonsense. As Evakian said, it's not an illness, as it doesn't have any negative effects. Read this (http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html) It also exists in animals other than good ol' H. sapiens sapiens: Sheep (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22107-2004Jul1?language=printer), Sheep again (http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478), penguins (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL). That penguin article also mentions that most bonobos are bisexual. I don't understand how you think it's a mental illness, when the entire scientific and psychological community disagrees with you.

Well this is refreshing! :)
I must be spending too much time at TheologyOnLine aka. "StoneTheHomos.com"
TOL is having a Striaght Pride Month.:rolleyes: I'm not sure what we're supposed to be proud about.:confused: Being entirely normal isn't exactly something that gets me excited.
As to the topic, no, I don't think homosexuality is a disorder of any kind. I believe it is something that just occurs naturally.

I have seen a few people reply that the APA does not clasify it as a mental illness.
Actualy I have checked the APA and who was head of the research they use to define what homosexuality is and what you have stated here.
The person to Head up the research is Susan Cochran

Here is an interesting artical about Susan Cochran where in it states the following,
" She is a former board member of the Directors for the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association "
Here is the link.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/pr/newsitem060101.html

I have also looked for information about people who helped her with her research and quite a few of them are gay or lesbian.

I could be mistaken but it seems to me that you are under the assumption that a gay person telling everyone that being gay is not an illness is ok.

How about if I post more of Susan Cochran's research on the subject of gay and lesbian people.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.html

All of the information I just gave you is gathered from names and information in the artical that the APA and the AMA provide.

Where in it states.
"Several studies suggest that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals appear to have higher rates of some mental disorders compared with heterosexuals,"

I must also point out that Susan Cochran doesnt want people to use her research as a means to point out that Homosexuals have a higher chance of mental illness.
However several other researchers gay and striehgt alike have also come to the same conclusion.
I should point out as well that some of the mental illness is contributed to the bias-ness "lack of word" of heterosexual people.

However researchers have done research in countries where they are no where near as bias in the U.S and homosexuals still have a higher likelyhood of mental illness then heterosexuals.

Here is another link.
" Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States"
"Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S."

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Now granted it is from Narth and Narth is known for being bias but it is basically saying the same thing that the gay researchers themselves are saying. I would also like to ask you to take a look at what the researcher's themselves have to say and not where the research is posted as I have given examples from both strieght and homosexual view points.

I don't believe homosexuality is a mental illness but I do believe it is a dysfunctional behavior. That is not a value judgement and I am not saying homosexuals have any less value than heterosexuals. What I am saying is that since the primary function of an organism is to carry on its genetic code and since homosexuality interferes with this it is dysfunctional.

If everyone in the world was heterosexual the human race would continue. If everyone in the world was homosexual the human race would end in one generation.

Homosexuals can be as nice and as un-nice as heterosexuals, they can be a good or as bad, they are not some sort of lesser breed of human any more than left handed people are less than right handed people.

Homosexuality is a dysfunctional form of sex though.

"... What I am saying is that since the primary function of an organism is to carry on its genetic code and since homosexuality interferes with this it is dysfunctional. ..."

How is it then that homosexuality has continued throughout mankind's history? If they are not procreating then where does homosexuality come from?

While there appears to be a higher incidence of mental disease within the homosexual populace, how much might that be reduced if heterosexuals simply accepted homosexuality as a fact of life?

While there appears to be a higher incidence of mental disease within the homosexual populace, how much might that be reduced if heterosexuals simply accepted homosexuality as a fact of life?
================================================

Es, I like that question. Probably would end a lot of feelings of quilt and embarrassment.
Which could lead to a healthier state of mind.

[b
While there appears to be a higher incidence of mental disease within the homosexual populace, how much might that be reduced if heterosexuals simply accepted homosexuality as a fact of life?


I wonder how much of that would be reduced if we would actualy think of the possiblity that it just might be a mental illness.

I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.Most christians frown upon it......However there is NOTHING wrong with it...

Most christians frown upon it......However there is NOTHING wrong with it...

All I am doing for the moment is questioning it.

I wonder how much of that would be reduced if we would actualy think of the possiblity that it just might be a mental illness.
In essence, from what I understand, you said: If homosexuality is acknowledged as a mental illness, mental illness rates among homosexuals will decrease.

What?

Moving onto one of your links, with emphasis added:
The results of several breakthrough studies are offering new insights on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Among the key findings:

* Several studies suggest that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals appear to have higher rates of some mental disorders compared with heterosexuals, although not to the level of a serious pathology. Discrimination may help fuel these higher rates.

* A study found lesbians reported equally strong levels of mental health as their heterosexual sisters and higher self-esteem.

* A new study of gay and lesbian youth finds that they are only slightly more likely than heterosexual youth to attempt suicide, refuting previous research that suggested much higher rates.

Researchers say these studies demonstrate the need for better, more tailored psychological treatment for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.
The information and viewpoints expressed in your links fail to provide a solid case that homosexuality is a mental illness, it just shows that mental illness may accompany homosexuality based on societal, or even genetic factors.

It's probably an indicator of how the brain has developed, but that doesn't make it a mental illness. Likewise,we don't know what brain development determines that one person will become a doctor and another become an artist. It just is.
I can understand why more homosexuals suffer from mental disorders than heterosexuals. Modern history shows how abdominally some of them have been treated, Curiously In ancient times, some societies were quite different, Sparta for example.

edited to add missing word <been>

In essence, from what I understand, you said: If homosexuality is acknowledged as a mental illness, mental illness rates among homosexuals will decrease.

What?

I am saying that if homosexuality is a mental illness that can be treated, the other problems associated with homosexuality will more then likely go away.


Moving onto one of your links, with emphasis added:

The information and viewpoints expressed in your links fail to provide a solid case that homosexuality is a mental illness, it just shows that mental illness may accompany homosexuality based on societal, or even genetic factors.


Yes and I did ask people to read what the researchers themselves had to say and that I quoted from both strieght and gay researchers.
You seemed to have emphasised on just one artical.
Genetic factors are the cause of many mental illness' so who is to say it wouldnt be a factor to help prove that homosexuality is a mental illness?

I am saying that if homosexuality is a mental illness that can be treated, the other problems associated with homosexuality will more then likely go away.
Provide adequate evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness, provide adequate evidence that it is a "treatable condition", and provide evidence that "treating" homosexuality would eliminate the other problems. Until you do that, this discussion goes nowhere.

Provide adequate evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness, provide adequate evidence that it is a "treatable condition", and provide evidence that "treating" homosexuality would eliminate the other problems. Until you do that, this discussion goes nowhere.


I cant.

I dont think we would be able to do that until we get past the morality issue.

We being sociaty and the researchers who might otherwise discover it was an illness.

We being sociaty and the researchers who might otherwise discover it was an illness.
You're suggesting that if society viewed it as wrong, then scientific research and psychiatric study would find something that is not harmful or curable in the least to be an illness due to moral bias.

The ancient papal attitude on Earth's position in the universe did not change the validity of Copernicus' findings.

You're suggesting that if society viewed it as wrong, then scientific research and psychiatric study would find something that is not harmful or curable in the least to be an illness due to moral bias.

The ancient papal attitude on Earth's position in the universe did not change the validity of Copernicus' findings.

No I am not saying we should view it as wrong. I am saying that anyone suggesting that it might be wrong should not be shot down as being bias.

The APA and the AMA shouldnt use research from a lesbian to confirm that homosexuality isnt a mental illness.

Its just one example that could quite possibly hinder research and give results that are satisfactory to morality issues and not to health issues.

No I am not saying we should view it as wrong. I am saying that anyone suggesting that it might be wrong should not be shot down as being bias.

The APA and the AMA shouldnt use research from a lesbian to confirm that homosexuality isnt a mental illness.

Its just one example that could quite possibly hinder research and give results that are satisfactory to morality issues and not to health issues.
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the term "peer review". It's essential in science, you know. So what if Cochran is a dyke? If she put out bogus research, someone else would yell and scream and stomp about it. Instead, groups such as the APA gave her a pat on the head. That's fine by me, especially considering that she's hardly the only person doing GLBT research.

I cant.

I dont think we would be able to do that until we get past the morality issue.

We being sociaty and the researchers who might otherwise discover it was an illness.
================================================== ==
How would some people get past the prescribed morality of religion?

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the term "peer review". It's essential in science, you know. So what if Cochran is a dyke? If she put out bogus research, someone else would yell and scream and stomp about it. Instead, groups such as the APA gave her a pat on the head. That's fine by me, especially considering that she's hardly the only person doing GLBT research.


Taking into consideration that Cochran's work opened a floodgate for gays I would have to say almost every person using her work in correlation with their own is gay or lesbian.

Every single book I have seen that uses her work as a reference point is writen by a homosexual.

I would also say speaking out against it would be like insulting the gay bible.
I highly doubt anyone would be willing to take the chance.

I have seen minimal research done on homosexuality by heterosexuals and almost all of it has been discredited because it was seen as bias.

================================================== ==
How would some people get past the prescribed morality of religion?

I dont know Dan. I would have to take an example from a post you made in this thread and elaborate with a passage.


P.S. I do believe one can recover from the prejudices of Christianity.


Jesus said, "You see the speck in your sibling's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you expel the beam from your own eye then you will be able to see to expel the speck from the eye of your sibling."

I know youre familar with the new Testament.

I like gay people.
They are sharp dressers, and they dance really well.

Plus they will never, ever produce offspring that are going to run around the department store like noisy, undisciplined brats, and annoy the crap out of me.

So what's all the fuss about?
:rolleyes:

How is it then that homosexuality has continued throughout mankind's history? If they are not procreating then where does homosexuality come from? (es347fan)

Homosexuality is not a disease that kills so like other diseases that do not kill it continues in society. We don't know what causes homosexuality. Perhaps it is a sex linked gene, perhaps it is a non-sex linked gene, perhaps it is something else. There are other human condiditions that are dysfunctional (not used in a moral sense but biological one) that continue in society. Since they do not kill they continue to exist.


Curiously In ancient times, some societies were quite different, Sparta for example.
(Oldtimer)

Homosexuality as practiced in societies like the Ancient Greek were not the same as what we consider homosexuality today. It was more usually a bisexuality and was most often connected with age. An older man took a young boy as his protege and lover, the sexual association usually lasting until the child grew to adulthood. After that, while the friendship remained the sexual aspect disappeared. It was almost a sort of tutelage. Even while the two were in a homosexual relationship the older man had a wife and continued to have heterosexual relations, and the younger man had heterosexual relations and married upon reaching adulthood. That was a form of social bi-sexuality not something biological.

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."----Sigmund Freud

I think most of us who post here basically agree with Freud. Homosexuals should be no less valued as people than left handed people are. They are different and I would prefer not being one but that doesn't mean I look down on them or think they should in any way be persecuted. There are gay men and women I can't stand but that has nothing to do with their gayness but rather with their entire personalities. There are also gay men and women I like a lot and again it is because of their personalities.

Modern history shows how abdominally some of them have treated.With what, Pepto-Bismal? :)

Homosexuality is not a disease that kills so like other diseases that do not kill it continues in society.Homosexuality is a disease?

Huh. Who knew?

With what, Pepto-Bismal? :)

I can say that as a gay man I've been treated abdominally many times...sometimes I even pay extra for it. ;-)

I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.

I know people here are very open minded and I would like to know what your views on the subject are.

I am curious Inviolable...why do you equate being Christan with viewing homosexuality as a mental illness?

To get back to your question, I would not view it as a mental illness, nor any other kind of illness. It is merely a biologically induced sexual preference.

I am saying that if homosexuality is a mental illness that can be treated, the other problems associated with homosexuality will more then likely go away.

Which other problems would go away? AIDS within the gay population for instance, is that what you mean?

Which other problems would go away?

I'm curious about this as well. What problems are associated with homosexuality?

I'm curious about this as well. What problems are associated with homosexuality?
Well, it doubles your chances of being attacked by this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps).
I hate that guy.

Homosexuality is a disease?

Huh. Who knew?

Poor choice of words on my part. Mea culpa. Homosexuality is not a condition that kills is what I should have said.

I'm curious about this as well. What problems are associated with homosexuality?

This is for Sal as well.
In the two articals I posted, one from a heterosexual and one from a lesbian; they both stated the following.

depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence.

* Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.

* Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.

* Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.

That was from the research of Cochran, who is a lesbian.
It does equate some of it to Discrimination. I would not argue that gay people do suffer it.

This is from the research from the strieght guy.

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).

Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of the new studies is their degree of control."

Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

AIDS isnt even in the equation.

I am curious Inviolable...why do you equate being Christan with viewing homosexuality as a mental illness?

To get back to your question, I would not view it as a mental illness, nor any other kind of illness. It is merely a biologically induced sexual preference.


I am a Christian and the general consensus among Christians is that it is a mental illness. I made the statement because it is a well known one.

Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.
So we have determined that the legislation of gay marriage has no effect no suicide rates. ...So what? If anything, this is evidence against homosexuality being a mental disorder.
I am a Christian and the general consensus among Christians is that it is a mental illness. I made the statement because it is a well known one.
Perhaps among the Christians you are around. It speaks very ill of your religion when you make such statements.

Let's continue on the thread here with homosexuals being more prone to mental illness. Let's assume this is true. How, exactly, would you handle it? You obviously can't "treat" homosexuality any more than you can treat being black or having an abnormal IQ. It's just a side effect of a condition that really is untreatable. I'm sure you're screaming about the "ex-gay" programs to your monitor at the moment...they don't work. Every scientific organization (including but not limited to the famous dyke Susan Cochran) has condemned ex-gay organizations as mentally damaging, because they tend to destroy a person's feeling of self-worth. They are heinous organizations that do a great deal of harm to people. A parent sending a child to one of those camps should be charged with child abuse, as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at the research: 1 (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html) 2 (http://www.thebody.com/apa/apafacts.html) 3 (http://content.apa.org/journals/pro/33/3/249.html) (subscription req.)

Is having parents who are smarter then you a deadly mental disease?
The Link Between Intelligence and Suicide Risk

Boys in their late teens who score lower on intelligence tests may be more likely to commit suicide than their peers, say researchers from the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and the Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden.

Researchers studied 18-year-old males who served in the Swedish military between 1968 and 1994. (In Sweden, military service is required by law.) At the time each soldier entered the military, he took standard intelligence tests designed to assess logic, language, spatial, and technical skills. Using census information and medical records, researchers followed the men for 5 to 26 years and identified how many committed suicide.

A total of 2,811 men of the 987,308 studied committed suicide during the follow-up period. Teens who had the lowest scores on the intelligence tests had a risk of suicide two to three times higher than those who had the highest test scores. Other factors that were associated with suicide risk included parents' education. Teens whose parents were well-educated but who had low test scores themselves had the greatest risk of suicide overall.

What This Means to You: Teens who have lower scores on intelligence tests may be at increased risk for suicide. According to the results of this study, cognitive ability - the skills that intelligence tests measure - may play a role in serious mental disorders or in a person's ability to solve problems. If you suspect your child is having difficulty learning or problem solving in the classroom, talk to your child's teacher or doctor about how to help.

If your teen seems withdrawn or anxious, has shown changes in his eating or sleeping habits, or begins getting poor grades, these may be signs of an underlying emotional problem. If you're concerned about your child's emotional or physical health, talk to your child's doctor.

Source: D. Gunnell; P.K.E. Magnusson; F. Rasmussen; British Medical Journal, January 22, 2005
http://kidshealth.org/research/intelligence_suicide_link.html
Lets cure the people with low IQ's. It's detremental to their health!!1!11!

As you can see this study concluded that those who could not live up to their parents expectations or follow them in their metal capacities showed a higher tendancy for suicide. So the link between suicide and homosexuality could very well be to A. rejection by the parents or B. Homos blaming themselves for not being like thier parents.

Your study does not prove what you are claiming it does.

Suicide often results from feelings of alienation. If you want to claim that gays aren't that alienated I think you already defeated yourself on that point. So in conclusion (and I am not claimng that this is fact but merely a possiblity) you yourself may be responsible for high rates of suicide amoung gays. Just making a point...

So we have determined that the legislation of gay marriage has no effect no suicide rates. ...So what? If anything, this is evidence against homosexuality being a mental disorder.

Perhaps among the Christians you are around. It speaks very ill of your religion when you make such statements.

It speaks very ill to you.
I suppose its how you perceive it. You are saying we are wrong for assuming its an illness.
We are saying you are wrong for assuming it isnt an illness.

Which will help us to get past the morality issues so we can just get to making it a health issue?


Let's continue on the thread here with homosexuals being more prone to mental illness. Let's assume this is true. How, exactly, would you handle it? You obviously can't "treat" homosexuality any more than you can treat being black or having an abnormal IQ. It's just a side effect of a condition that really is untreatable. I'm sure you're screaming about the "ex-gay" programs to your monitor at the moment...they don't work. Every scientific organization (including but not limited to the famous dyke Susan Cochran) has condemned ex-gay organizations as mentally damaging, because they tend to destroy a person's feeling of self-worth. They are heinous organizations that do a great deal of harm to people. A parent sending a child to one of those camps should be charged with child abuse, as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at the research: 1 (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html) 2 (http://www.thebody.com/apa/apafacts.html) 3 (http://content.apa.org/journals/pro/33/3/249.html) (subscription req.)


A chemical inbalance.

Before the bipolar disorder was labled as bipolar it was known as menic depresion. After the chemical inbalance was recognised suicide among people with manic depresion dropped drastically.

It speaks very ill to you.
I suppose its how you perceive it. You are saying we are wrong for assuming its an illness.
We are saying you are wrong for assuming it isnt an illness.
Borg isn't assuming it's not an illness, he is going with the factual consensus of the scientific and psychological community. You are the one making assumptions, and also trying to make it seem suicide rates work in conjunction with being homosexual.

If homosexuals have a higher rate of suicide, it is not indicative of homosexuality itself being a mental illness. Any form of mental illness (such as bipolar disorder or clinical depression) that happens to be at higher rates within the homosexual community, does not constitute evidence that homosexuality is an illness.

The higher rates of suicide may be due to genetic, or more likely, societal factors, but again, this is not evidence enough to show homosexuality is any type of "illness."
Before the bipolar disorder was labled as bipolar it was known as menic depresion. After the chemical inbalance was recognised suicide among people with manic depresion dropped drastically.
And I am certain that you will have no problem quantifying this claim with proof, or at least elaborating on it for our sakes.

Borg isn't assuming it's not an illness, he is going with the factual consensus of the scientific and psychological community. You are the one making assumptions, and also trying to make it seem suicide rates work in conjunction with being homosexual.

If homosexuals have a higher rate of suicide, it is not indicative of homosexuality itself being a mental illness. Any form of mental illness (such as bipolar disorder or clinical depression) that happens to be at higher rates within the homosexual community, does not constitute evidence that homosexuality is an illness.

The higher rates of suicide may be due to genetic, or more likely, societal factors, but again, this is not evidence enough to show homosexuality is any type of "illness."

Yes and I am saying that the only people doing research on the subject are people who will not look in any other direction then it is based off of discrimination.


And I am certain that you will have no problem quantifying this claim with proof, or at least elaborating on it for our sakes.

Yes and I am saying that the only people doing research on the subject are people who will not look in any other direction then it is based off of discrimination.

But drawing that conclusion makes no sense.

IF homosexuality WAS IN FACT a disease, and if in fact the only people researching it are homosexuals AND if they are killing themselves off because of it, don't you think it would be in their best interest to determine it IS a disease and then cure it.

But drawing that conclusion makes no sense.

IF homosexuality WAS IN FACT a disease, and if in fact the only people researching it are homosexuals AND if they are killing themselves off because of it, don't you think it would be in their best interest to determine it IS a disease and then cure it.

Are you saying a mental illness is the same as a disease?

What if a lot of people were commiting suicide, which they are.
If it is a mental illness and the person doing the research is gay themselves why would they want to point it out?

That would be like admitting they were wrong and the only thing to come from it is more heardships for the gay and lesbian community.
Dealling with the issue and possibly correcting it could be more trouble to a gay person then just staying gay. Thats how I think it would be seen from someone who is gay themselves.
Personaly I think it would be that way only at first.
After a while I think sociaty in general will realise that it is a mental dissability
and will genuinely want to help people with the problem. If it is recognised as a mental illness the morality issue will go from, being bias against gays to being bias against someone with a mental disorder.

I am not saying that we should say being gay is a mental illness to make it a more respectable issue.
I am saying that if it is found to be a mental illness people will grow to treat it with more respect.
I am also saying that at the moment if it is a mental condition gays will not want to admit to it because recovering from it will be more of a challenge then just staying gay.
Considering that gays are already facing a lot of persecution the added pressure to recover from being gay would most certainly not help their plight.

Yes and I am saying that the only people doing research on the subject are people who will not look in any other direction then it is based off of discrimination.

Sorry Evak, I started this post and something came up. I hit post reply with out thinking and never finished it.

I have searched for proof but it is hard to find any old data.
I have found plenty of new data where in it talks about the symptom' of bipolar disorder and how lithium has cut down the suicide rate among people with severe bipolar disorder.

I can post those if you would like to read them?

Are you saying a mental illness is the same as a disease?

Yes I would absolutely say that mental illness is the same as a disease. One is a disease of the brain, the other of the body. I would liken it to say... diabetes in the sense that many, many mental illnesses are absolutely controllable with the correct drugs. Just as diabetes is controllable with insulin. At this time they are not curable, but definitely controllable.

What if a lot of people were commiting suicide, which they are.
If it is a mental illness and the person doing the research is gay themselves why would they want to point it out?
Because then they could work on a cure.

That would be like admitting they were wrong and the only thing to come from it is more heardships for the gay and lesbian community.
Dealling with the issue and possibly correcting it could be more trouble to a gay person then just staying gay. Thats how I think it would be seen from someone who is gay themselves.
Researchers admit they are wrong all the time. They do not work in a vacuum. Someone must fund them. When they are going in the wrong direction they change course. It is a science, not a game.

How could correcting the problem be more trouble than staying gay if like you say it is fraught with such peril, as depression, suicide etc?

Yes there is still stigma attached to being gay. There is stigma attached to having a mental illness and various other things. There was a day when people were afraid to tell others they had cancer it carried such a bad stigma. Today, people readily admit to much they would have hidden before. Things change, social pressures change, society does actually grow and become more tolerant.

Yes I would absolutely say that mental illness is the same as a disease. One is a disease of the brain, the other of the body. I would liken it to say... diabetes in the sense that many, many mental illnesses are absolutely controllable with the correct drugs. Just as diabetes is controllable with insulin. At this time they are not curable, but definitely controllable.


Because then they could work on a cure.


Researchers admit they are wrong all the time. They do not work in a vacuum. Someone must fund them. When they are going in the wrong direction they change course. It is a science, not a game.

How could correcting the problem be more trouble than staying gay if like you say it is fraught with such peril, as depression, suicide etc?

Yes there is still stigma attached to being gay. There is stigma attached to having a mental illness and various other things. There was a day when people were afraid to tell others they had cancer it carried such a bad stigma. Today, people readily admit to much they would have hidden before. Things change, social pressures change, society does actually grow and become more tolerant.


Last thing I said on the last post I made.
Considering that gays are already facing a lot of persecution the added pressure to recover from being gay would most certainly not help their plight.

Even if homosexuality is discovered to be a disease as you put it. The research to help treat it has not been done yet.

The problems they are having now would most certainly triple.

Well, this conversation seems to be going nowhere fast. Let me retreat to the original post again-
I know as a Christian I view homosexuality as a mental illness that can at times be something people can recover from.
There is zero evidence in the Bible that homosexuality is a mental illness. It is called an abomination, it is called shameful, but there is not even one passage in the book that outlines it as a mental illness. So your viewpoint being justified by your religion is moot.

Besides, you have even admitted that you can provide no evidence to back up your stand that homosexuality is a treatable condition, much less an "illness." Your posted articles were of no help to your cause, nor was the fact one of the writers was a homosexual.

The idea that it is an illness transcends moral implications of it, and the psychiatric world disagrees with your standpoint.

Last thing I said on the last post I made.
Considering that gays are already facing a lot of persecution the added pressure to recover from being gay would most certainly not help their plight.

Even if homosexuality is discovered to be a disease as you put it. The research to help treat it has not been done yet.

The problems they are having now would most certainly triple.

Except that at no point do I say it is an illness/disease. I think you have totally misconstrued everything I have said...There is no such thing as a "recovery" from homosexuality. But, I did try... :) Have a nice day, catch ya in another thread perhaps.

Well, this conversation seems to be going nowhere fast. Let me retreat to the original post again-

There is zero evidence in the Bible that homosexuality is a mental illness. It is called an abomination, it is called shameful, but there is not even one passage in the book that outlines it as a mental illness. So your viewpoint being justified by your religion is moot.

Besides, you have even admitted that you can provide no evidence to back up your stand that homosexuality is a treatable condition, much less an "illness." Your posted articles were of no help to your cause, nor was the fact one of the writers was a homosexual.

The idea that it is an illness transcends moral implications of it, and the psychiatric world disagrees with your standpoint.


So basically you want me to start the whole thread over to help you in your arguement against it?

Except that at no point do I say it is an illness/disease. I think you have totally misconstrued everything I have said...There is no such thing as a "recovery" from homosexuality. But, I did try... :) Have a nice day, catch ya in another thread perhaps.

No, maybe you misconstrued... ed.. Everything I have been saying.
There is no recovery because there will be no one willing to prove that it is a mental illness due to the fact... Why is what I have been saying not getting through?

Its exactly like non-christians telling a christian they wish to remain ignorant on some subjects. People are remaining ignorant on this subject.

Is it because they dont want to be moraly incorrect or because they just dont want to agree with me?

There is no recovery because there will be no one willing to prove that it is a mental illness due to the fact...
Recovery would still exist if it was a mental illness, if scientists acknowledge it as such wouldn't change that, and studies on "homosexual recovery" have already abysmally shown it to have failed.
Why is what I have been saying not getting through?
People are remaining ignorant on this subject.
You're misspelling many a word and I have trouble making sense of your points, speak more clearly, bitte.

Okay, you seem to be entertaining the idea that if homosexuality was declared a mental illness, that it would assist in "curing" them and lead to a decrease in suicide amongst the demographic. Why is that so? What evidence do you have that leads you to this conclusion?

Even if homosexuality is discovered to be a disease as you put it. The research to help treat it has not been done yet.
What makes you think that research on the nature of homosexuality hasn't been done yet?
Is it because they dont want to be moraly incorrect or because they just dont want to agree with me?
I have no fear of being labeled morally incorrect by you, or anyone for that matter. I am disagreeing with your proposal that homosexuality may be a mental illness, that it may be a treatable condition, and I'm not alone or uninformed in my decision.

No, maybe you misconstrued... ed.. Everything I have been saying.
There is no recovery because there will be no one willing to prove that it is a mental illness due to the fact... Why is what I have been saying not getting through?

Its exactly like non-christians telling a christian they wish to remain ignorant on some subjects. People are remaining ignorant on this subject.

Is it because they dont want to be moraly incorrect or because they just dont want to agree with me?
================================================== ==

Are you open to the possibility that no one has proven homosexuality to be a mental illness because it is not?
Are religious views allowing some people to remain ignorant to the possibility?
What if it just turns out to be the choice of some people to live a different life style because of preference? Could you accept that it is strictly their business and none of ours?

No, maybe you misconstrued... ed.. Everything I have been saying.
There is no recovery because there will be no one willing to prove that it is a mental illness due to the fact... Why is what I have been saying not getting through?

Its exactly like non-christians telling a christian they wish to remain ignorant on some subjects. People are remaining ignorant on this subject.

Is it because they dont want to be moraly incorrect or because they just dont want to agree with me?

I believe that what you are saying is the following;
You believe that homosexuality is an illness.
You believe that all researchers in the area are biased due to their homosexuality. You believe they do not want to see or to conclude that homosexuality is an illness. If they did they would have to seek a cure. They do not want to seek a cure because they really do not want to change.
They would rather just be depressed and suicidal or some such bizarre notion.

You think that this is somehow a Christian held belief.
__________________________________________________ _______
I on the other hand do not believe it to be an illness.
Do not believe all researchers in the field are biased OR gay.

I also think that your conclusion that they don't want to view it as an illness or seek a cure because they "just don't want to change" is unsupported by any evidence available. There is no evidence because it is not true.

I also do not believe it is a Christian held view. I believe it is your view.

I am not remaining ignorant on this subject I am getting frustrated because you will not follow the logic of a rebuttal and answer it piece by piece. I thought it was perhaps because of the way I had worded it. Now I know that is not the problem.

IF what you were saying had a vague possibility I would be more than happy to follow any links which you provide. However, of course there are no links because there is no research to back you up. And that is because all of the researchers are gay and biased. So where could we possibly go from there other than to say....what?

I believe that what you are saying is the following;
You believe that homosexuality is an illness.
You believe that all researchers in the area are biased due to their homosexuality. You believe they do not want to see or to conclude that homosexuality is an illness. If they did they would have to seek a cure. They do not want to seek a cure because they really do not want to change.
They would rather just be depressed and suicidal or some such bizarre notion.

You think that this is somehow a Christian held belief.
__________________________________________________ _______
I on the other hand do not believe it to be an illness.
Do not believe all researchers in the field are biased OR gay.

I also think that your conclusion that they don't want to view it as an illness or seek a cure because they "just don't want to change" is unsupported by any evidence available. There is no evidence because it is not true.

I also do not believe it is a Christian held view. I believe it is your view.

I am not remaining ignorant on this subject I am getting frustrated because you will not follow the logic of a rebuttal and answer it piece by piece. I thought it was perhaps because of the way I had worded it. Now I know that is not the problem.

IF what you were saying had a vague possibility I would be more than happy to follow any links which you provide. However, of course there are no links because there is no research to back you up. And that is because all of the researchers are gay and biased. So where could we possibly go from there other than to say....what?


I am not saying that they do not want to admit that it might be an illness because they simply do not want to change.
I am saying that if it is admitted to be an illness then the suicide rate and depression among gays will go up, until the research is started to treat it.
At the moment no research has been done to treat it because there is no research being done to say it is an illness. If no research is being done to treat it no method of treatment will be readily at hand for quite some time.
It may not be as much a bias issue as it is a human interest issue.

The concerns of suicide being raised may prevent homosexuality as even being seen as an illness.

I have nothing against that.

My concern is there are people who may be simply confused and have a mental illness that will not get it treated because the morality issue of gay rights can and will prevent them from seeking help.
There is no research to back me up because of what I have said above.

I can just as easily apply your reasoning (or lack thereof) to Christianity and say that the reason no one is researching the mental illness of Christianity is because if Christians knew it was a mental illness their suicide rate would triple.

I can just as easily apply your reasoning (or lack thereof) to Christianity and say that the reason no one is researching the mental illness of Christianity is because if Christians knew it was a mental illness their suicide rate would triple.


The world is looking for its own answers reguardless of their religious beliefs or lack of.

The world is not trying to research homosexuality.

I am saying that if it is admitted to be an illness then the suicide rate and depression among gays will go up, until the research is started to treat it.
Many homosexuals don't want to be gay because of society and religious reasons. I'm sure many would be happy about the idea that they could be treated for their "illness", which means it wouldn't create that much of a rise in depression among gays.

However if I had an "illness" that harmed nothing and brought joy into my life I'd gladly live with it. I doubt I'd become "depressed" and to be honest, suicide is something many homosexuals have to deal with regardless. Having most in American society look down apon homosexuality causes depression in many homosexuals and many believe something is wrong with them regardless if the scientific community agrees that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Honestly, what evidence do you use when trying to prove that it is an illness? Maybe you could present your case to the scientific community.

If only all you mentally ill, queers, poofs, dykes, sissy boys, queens, fags, homos and gays, lesbos, or whatever would just go back in the closet and stop trying to live a normal life there would be no problem. Don't your realize it is all your fault?

Go back in the closet. Pretend you don't exist. Deny who you are.

I am sure you all chose to be gay. Why wouldn't someone choose a lifestyle that meant he/she stood a fair chance of being beaten or perhaps even killed? Why wouldn't someone choose a lifestyle that meant some other people always considered you a second class citizen? There are all those advantages to being gay................higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, higher incidence of other STDs, greater chance of being attacked, running into discrimination at the workplace. Who wouldn't choose those things if it meant you were also considered a better dresser and better at doing hair and decorating rooms?

Of course homosexuality is something people choose and not something in their lives that just is. All those homos are just being obstinate. They could change if they really wanted.

























In case you missed it, I am being sarcastic.

In case you missed it, I am being sarcastic.
Phew....ya had me going for a while.........

A guy on the radio tonight, that writes books on reincarnation, said being gay might be suppressed memories from a past life as the opposite gender.????

So Invioable when is bondage going to be labeled a mental disorder? how about anal?

The Big Easy proved to be quite difficult for the so-called "ex-gay" industry earlier this month. At the American Psychological Association's annual convention in New Orleans, anti-gay forces choreographed an expensive protest designed to pressure the APA into endorsing "ex-gay" therapy.

However, instead of succor, "conversion therapy" leaders got sucker punched with the APA forcefully reiterating that being gay is not a mental illness and efforts to "treat" homosexuality can be dangerous.

"The APA's concern about the position's espoused by the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish."
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=150&Itemid=35

Seems I'm a little late to this bunfight, but maybe I have a couple of points that haven't been covered yet:


I could be mistaken but it seems to me that you are under the assumption that a gay person telling everyone that being gay is not an illness is ok

I'd say it's at least as okay as a christian telling everyone it is


If everyone in the world was heterosexual the human race would continue. If everyone in the world was homosexual the human race would end in one generation

There are lots of homsexual people and couple's who want to produce children, just as there are plenty of hetrosexual couples that are for various reasons unable to conceive naturally but who choose one of a variety of methods to reproduce. The human race would not end in one generation.

Homosexuality is a dysfunctional for of sex though

If you're basing that on the primary outcome of sex being progeny, then fellatio, cunilingus, anal sex between heterosexual couples etc etc are also dysfunctional. And having sex while using birth control is disfunctional.

All I am doing for the moment is questioning it.I see..

Its always good asking questions and gaining knowledge :)

There are lots of homsexual people and couple's who want to produce children, just as there are plenty of hetrosexual couples that are for various reasons unable to conceive naturally but who choose one of a variety of methods to reproduce. The human race would not end in one generation.

Okay, it would take a couple generations. Most homosexuals do not have children so there would be fewer and fewer children born each year. Once you hit a certain critical level in population the population is no longer viable.



If you're basing that on the primary outcome of sex being progeny, then fellatio, cunilingus, anal sex between heterosexual couples etc etc are also dysfunctional. And having sex while using birth control is disfunctional.

From a biological point they are dysfunctional. I didn't say that homosexuals were bad or somehow of lesser value than other people, only that homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement.

In case you missed it, I am being sarcastic.
Good, cus I was about to spit some seriously ill venom at you.
From a biological point they are dysfunctional. I didn't say that homosexuals were bad or somehow of lesser value than other people, only that homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement.
I agree that homosexual sex is dysfunctional if the intent is to produce children. However, the purpose of homosexual sex is definitly not for reproduction.

Okay, it would take a couple generations. Most homosexuals do not have children so there would be fewer and fewer children born each year. Once you hit a certain critical level in population the population is no longer viable.





From a biological point they are dysfunctional. I didn't say that homosexuals were bad or somehow of lesser value than other people, only that homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement.
I don't even know if I'd agree with that, though on the surface it seems plausible enough. I think it's plausible—though I don't have any evidence to back this up; it needs study, and it may in fact be complete bullshit—that homosexuality is a form of population control. I'd like to see studies based on overcrowded conditions and the incidence of homosexuality compared to more rural settings. It's also entirely possible that it's just an aberration, but I don't see how an aberration like that, being by definition incapable of being passed through genes (except if it is a recessive condition in a particular allele) could become widespread enough to affect 3–10% of the population.

From a biological point they are dysfunctional. I didn't say that homosexuals were bad or somehow of lesser value than other people, only that homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement.
From a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense. The world is already overcrowded and if heterosexuals continue to reproduce unabashedly a large percentage of the poulation will die in under 100 years.

Also note What Borg said. You claim homos must be sick because they are "not normal" by that you mean that they are a minority (and hence easy to pick on). Being a minority means that it is quite likely that they serve the function to stop over population. They are a compliment to heterosexuals.

Besides that you are completely discounting bi-sexuals and asexuals. Are they "deranged" too?

"... From a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense. The world is already overcrowded and if heterosexuals continue to reproduce unabashedly a large percentage of the poulation will die in under 100 years. ..."

What is the current prediction of the number of deaths in Africa over the next 20-50 years from AIDS ... 50 million or more? That's just in Africa. What about other countries that have high rates of AIDS - Thailand for one?

Most homosexuals do not have children so there would be fewer and fewer children born each year

Gee, do you think that might have something to do with the current social climate? Your hypothetical was "if the entire population was gay" - in which case I think it's safe to assume the laws of 'marriage', adoption, artificial insemination etc. might be a little friendlier towards gays than they are now, don't you? It's a little narrow minded to say that since most gays don't have children now it's because they don't want to, and that wouldn't change in an all-gay society.

...homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement.

I wasn't asking you to abandon it, just noting that you'd also have to include all forms of sex entered into with the purpose of pleasure in mind rather than procreation. Since it's not hard to imagine that describes the majority of sexual liasons in many societys, it has by defintion become the norm.

I wasn't asking you to abandon it, just noting that you'd also have to include all forms of sex entered into with the purpose of pleasure in mind rather than procreation. Since it's not hard to imagine that describes the majority of sexual liasons in many societys, it has by defintion become the norm.

And I restated that all forms of sex not for procreation are biologically dysfunctional unless they ultimately lead to sex for procreation. Using that criterium some forms of non-procreative sex might not be dysfunctional if their ultimate goal is to lead to procreative sex.

Using that criterium some forms of non-procreative sex might not be dysfunctional if their ultimate goal is to lead to procreative sex

So we're agreed, most incidents of hetero- and homosexual activity are dysfunctional

BTW criterium is not a word

From a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense. The world is already overcrowded and if heterosexuals continue to reproduce unabashedly a large percentage of the poulation will die in under 100 years.

Also note What Borg said. You claim homos must be sick because they are "not normal" by that you mean that they are a minority (and hence easy to pick on). Being a minority means that it is quite likely that they serve the function to stop over population. They are a compliment to heterosexuals.

Besides that you are completely discounting bi-sexuals and asexuals. Are they "deranged" too?

Where did I say homosexuals are sick? I said they practice a dysfunctional form of sex biologically. Nowhere did I say or indicate they were sick. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

If homosexuality is a form of species birth control it is a damned poor one since the population keeps increasing.

Where did I say homosexuals are sick?

That quote was attributed to Borg, as indicated by the statement

"Also note What Borg said. You claim homos must be sick"

If homosexuality is a form of species birth control it is a damned poor one since the population keeps increasing

Apparently condoms and the pill are also a damned poor form of birth control too then?

Apparemtly they are.

That quote was attributed to Borg, as indicated by the statement

"Also note What Borg said. You claim homos must be sick"
The quote was not attributed to me, nor did I make such a claim. What was attributed to me was the part after that: "Being a minority means that it is quite likely that they serve the function to stop over population. They are a compliment to heterosexuals."

Apparemtly they are.

Well, if you think they are so ineffective (which they are not, if used properly), what would you recommend? Force contraceptives upon people?

Force contraceptives upon people?
Yup, right after we give 'em the IQ test... (sigh...in a perfect world):thumbs:

Well, if you think they are so ineffective (which they are not, if used properly), what would you recommend? Force contraceptives upon people?


I don't recommend anything. If people don't want to use contraceptives it is not for me to force them to do so. If People want to practice homosexual sex it is none of my concern.

I have no problem with people being practicing homosexuals as I went to pains to make clear. All I said was, biologically it is a dysfunctional form of sex when carrying on the gene pool is a consideration.

The quote was not attributed to me, nor did I make such a claim

I stand corrected

From a biological point they are dysfunctional. I didn't say that homosexuals were bad or somehow of lesser value than other people, only that homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement. Frogger - here is what you said. It is not our fault if you failed to clarify what you meant with "biologically". Borg and I pointed out that Biologically it makes perfect sense.

Now reproducibly it makes, obviously, no sense. But again, lack of reproduction isn't really any sort of modern concern. In fact its quite the opposite.

I am a Christian and the general consensus among Christians is that it is a mental illness. I made the statement because it is a well known one.This may be true within modern evangelicalism. However, there is a growing number of Christians who have come to the belief that homosexuality is a natural way that God made some people. I've become acquainted with some of these Christians, and have become one myself--so my answer to the original question would be 'no'.

Uncool! Long time no see...WB. :-)

"From a biological point they are dysfunctional. I didn't say that homosexuals were bad or somehow of lesser value than other people, only that homosexual sex is biologically dysfunctional. I stand by that statement. "Frogger - here is what you said. It is not our fault if you failed to clarify what you meant with "biologically". Borg and I pointed out that Biologically it makes perfect sense.

Quarterton, I had explained what I meant by dysfunctional in an earlier post. Perhaps you didn't read it or forgot it.




"I don't believe homosexuality is a mental illness but I do believe it is a dysfunctional behavior. That is not a value judgement and I am not saying homosexuals have any less value than heterosexuals. What I am saying is that since the primary function of an organism is to carry on its genetic code and since homosexuality interferes with this it is dysfunctional."

This may be true within modern evangelicalism. However, there is a growing number of Christians who have come to the belief that homosexuality is a natural way that God made some people. I've become acquainted with some of these Christians, and have become one myself--so my answer to the original question would be 'no'.

Holy mackeral... you were gone longer than I was. I remember you because you answered me in one of the first threads I posted in. Catch ya around! :)

Hey uncool, welcome back!

Thanks Vile/Sal/Lionel. Good to be back. Many of my views have changed quite a bit since I last posted around here, so it might get interesting. :cool:

Thanks Vile/Sal/Lionel. Good to be back. Many of my views have changed quite a bit since I last posted around here, so it might get interesting. :cool:

Good to see you back Uncool...I would be very interested indeed to see how much your views have changed. I hope you stick around awhile so we can find out. :-)

This statement I found rather interesting already:

"This may be true within modern evangelicalism. However, there is a growing number of Christians who have come to the belief that homosexuality is a natural way that God made some people. I've become acquainted with some of these Christians, and have become one myself--so my answer to the original question would be 'no'."

Good to see you back Uncool...I would be very interested indeed to see how much your views have changed. I hope you stick around awhile so we can find out. :-)
I fully intend to do just that;)

Some in the West might consider homosexuality an illness but in the Muslim world it is considered a crime punishable by death.

Here is a picture of two homosexual Muslims being hung for the terrible crime of gayness.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/images/gayhangingiran_1.jpg

By Muslim world you mean this is the case in which countries to be exact?
Anyway, if I was a gay man living in one of these countries I would have tried to emigrate before engaging in my "crime punishable by death". Perhaps emigrating is not easy to certain countries, but surely for something as important as (actually, two things) one's life and love (ok, three, plus sex), you can scrounge enough determination to endure the troubles of emigration.

Dio, By implying it is the fault of the gays because they should have emigrated is placing the blaim on the victims. Rather than gays either having to leave their homeland or supress their sexuality the world should raise such an uproar that the backward countries that practice this barbarism change their ways.

Would you say that the blacks in the Sudan should have emigrated because the Muslims in the north of the country have been enslaving them?

I didn't imply that the victim was to blame, Frogger.

I voiced my opinion based on this: If I was the gay man living in Muslim world, I would come to the realization that "the world should raise such an uproar that the backward countries that practice this barbarism change their ways." is considerably more difficult and time-consuming and less likely to solve my problem quickly and effectively, compared to if I just emigrate. Instead of saying it was wrong to be gay, I was saying from a problem-solving perspective on an individual level, emigrating should have been seriously considered.
Would you say that the blacks in the Sudan should have emigrated because the Muslims in the north of the country have been enslaving them?
Again, on an individual level, this depends on which option seems safer and more feasible. I am all about save your own ass before thinking about fighting back. Especially when the cause wouldn't effect you that much AFTER your own ass is saved.
having to leave their homeland
If I was gay and my homeland has traditionally deemed this punishable by death, I would have very little love for this "homeland". So leaving homeland really is not some sort of sad thing to do.

Dio, you are posting as if these people had an option. The majority of them cannot simply up and leave. They don't have the money or other resources necessary for that. Poor farmers and laborers in Afghanistan have barely enough to eat. How are they supposed to get the money to emigrate to a more tolerant country?

The blacks in Sudan are starving and you expect them to somehow come up with the money necessary to leave.

You are being highly unrealistic. These are not people with disposable income. In many cases they have what basically amounts to no income.

The fault lies not with them but with the religion of Islam and those people and governments who use it as an excuse to kill gays.

I did say (perhaps not enough times) depending on which option seems more feasible, Frogger. And in my example I only said that if I was the person in question, emigrating would have been a no brainer. Even if I was poor, if it concerns my life and romance, I would be willing to endure hardship just to get through the emigration.

I am sure most of those people who do not, CAN NOT. But the point is many of those who CAN feasibly emigrate, might not think about it seriously enough.
The fault lies not with them but with the religion of Islam and those people and governments who use it as an excuse to kill gays.
None of the things I said disagrees with this.

Some in the West might consider homosexuality an illness but in the Muslim world it is considered a crime punishable by death.

Here is a picture of two homosexual Muslims being hung for the terrible crime of gayness.

While I despise the practice of executing people for their sexual orientation you might have been a bit more precise in your description of the photograph. According to a google image search, the pictures were taken in Iran.

that guy in the blue shirt looks gay