You will be automatically re-directed in three seconds. Click the link to go to the new blog now. Use the search function on the new blog to find any story you are looking for on here.
Why are we (”we” as in homosexuals) are so opposed to the idea that maybe the APA was wrong to delist homosexuality as a mental illness? What if it is a mental illness? There’s certainly no solid proof of a biological origin for it, and it serves no evolutionary purpose. So why should homosexuality exist as a biological divergence in human sexuality? Do I personally believe it to be a mental disorder? Of course not. But that’s grounded in nothing more than faith. Faith that I am not suffering from a potentially treatable disorder. It’s certainly not based on a solid scientific foundation. Sure, there’s evidence that homosexuality is in part, genetically determined; but there’s no proof for this. Deviations in brain structure do not constitute proof of a biological origin for homosexuality. My personal belief is that homosexuality is partly genetic and partly due to environmental factors within the womb. And even then, there exists only the potential for homosexual preference until puberty hits and the hormones begin to change the structure of the brain. Yes, I believe that it’s innate and immutable; but again, that’s only a belief. No different from the belief that it’s a conscious choice, or that it’s a mental disorder originating from something lacking in one’s childhood. So why do we rail against that belief when we have no proof against it? I’d have to say it’s the fact that people don’t like being labelled as suffering from a mental disorder. Perhaps the idea that homosexuality might one day be treatable like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder scares us. We want to be thought of as normal, and having the possibility loom over us that we’re not causes us to lash out.Personally, I have to say that I'm disgusted that a gay person, epsecially one with the potential of reaching thousands of people with his words, would even dare to say something such as this. No, homosexuality is not a mental disease. If it were, there would have been enough evidence to keep it classified as one and the APA would have never taken it out of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Anonymous soldier claims that homosexuality "serves no evolutionary purpose" and then asks "So why should homosexuality exist as a biological divergence in human sexuality?" My friend, a student studying history who is also interested in anthropology and the study of people, once told me to consider the fact that homosexuals could be nature's way of controlling the human population. It is a fact that homosexuals do not reproduce as much as heterosexuals, mainly because the homosexual sex act does not carry with it the possibility of reproduction. A heterosexual couple can have many children, who in turn, have the possibility of having many children, and so on and so on. Homosexual couples do not carry that possibility. The only way homosexual couples can have children is to adopt or through surrogacy or through artificial insemination, all of which never lead to the "accidental" births we so often see in the heterosexual population. The flip side of this arguement would be that gays came about through intelligent design:
If it's not evolution... I have to agree with Dennis Rogers about homosexuality ("Old truth in young gays," Oct. 15). Homosexuality is very complex behavior; it appears in every generation, in every culture and in many species besides our own. It can't be a product of evolution because homosexuals don't reproduce. Homosexuality must be a product of Intelligent Design. Steve Klein Raleigh October 21, 2005Another thing to consider is that anti-gays use the premise that homosexuality is a disease by using "evidence" of all the negative side effects of living a "homosexual lifestyle". What about all of the negative side effects of the "heterosexual lifestyle"? In fact, I even posted about a letter to the editor on heterosexuality's negative side effects:
Re the letter, "Facts to add about homosexuals" (Nov. 28): If we're going to generalize that folks who live a "homosexual lifestyle" face many ills, we'll need to discuss the ills of the "heterosexual lifestyle." For example, the U.S. birth rate for teenagers in 1997 was 52.3 live births per 1,000 women age 15 to 19. Teen pregnancy is a heterosexual problem. Also, in America, 54 percent of new HIV/AIDS infections are among heterosexuals. This isn't even addressing that the incidence rates for sexually transmitted diseases chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea and human papilloma virus -- within the entire adolescent population in the United States have increased dramatically in the past decade. For example, 40 percent to 50 percent of all sexually active females have had a previous HPV infection, now known to account for most cases of cervical cancer. Lastly, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 2003 marriage rate in the United States was 7.5 per 1,000 total population, and the divorce rate 3.8 per 1,000 population. This apparent 50.7 percent divorce rate is a heterosexual problem. So to follow logic similar to the letter, students should be educated that heterosexuals aren't necessarily "bad" people, but that the "heterosexual lifestyle" is bad for people.My point is this... people are people and love is love. To be able to love is the greatest gift of all. To me, it does not matter how or who you love... Woman to Woman, Woman to Man or Man to Man. All that matters to be is that love be true and right; love must be something between two people, where both are respected and none are hurt. To say that our love is a "mental disease" is diseased in and of itself. I'm sorry Anonymous Soldier, but no matter how good your intentions, posing such a question was, at least in my opinion, wrong and disrespectful to all people who love, everywhere. Technorati Tags: gay youth, gay, lgbt, gay rights, homosexuality, heterosexuality, mental disease, psychology, evolution, intelligent design