reinterpreting the bibles view of homosexuality

This would all be a lot easier if this was treated as a scientific matter, rather than political.

As an INTJ, I have come to the same conclusion on many things.

But, I have also discovered that the rest of the world does not just view things in terms of empirical data so I have learned (and still working on it) to accept that not everything is as simple as black and white. Which, in their own right, are never as simple as first anticipated.

Star Forge wrote:

V-Tog wrote:

Star Forge wrote: On the other hand, I am personally opposed to homosexuality

How is that 100% for tolerance of homosexuality? You seem to be backpedaling...

I believe you're confusing tolerance with total affirmation and endorsement.

Sorry to disagree, but I know the difference between tolerance and endorsement - but I don't see how you can write on an internet forum that you are against homosexuality for a whole host of (in my and seemingly everyone elses opinion) ridiculous reasons, and also effectively say that you think homosexuality is a mental disorder, when there are quite possibly homosexual people on this forum who will be upset and offended by what you have written. If really you were against homosexuality but also pro-tolerance/anti-discrimination you would probably keep most of your thoughts to yourself.

The DSM III was not done sneakily and the changes and removal of homosexuality was not done in secret. The DSM III was a work for 5 years and was an effort to stop the issue that had existed before wherein diagnostic assessment by multiple psychologists/psychiatrists were hugely inconsistent and often contradictory. By working together with the WHO a new criteria was established to treat psychology in a more scientifically consistent manner. Homosexuality was removed because under the new criteria, no disorder could be established for homosexuality itself but rather the stress and social reaction causing exclusion and shame were the actual causes. We are in a similar position for Transsexuality and the upcoming DSM V. Empirical evidence of disorder in Transsexuals is almost impossible to establish unless you treat environmental stress disorders as part of the transsexuality itself. Currently Gender Dysphoria still exists in plans for DSM V but only due to the efforts of two influential diagnosticians. The rest of the practicing profession has a significant majority in favor of removing it entirely.

No APA action in the creation of a DSM is going to be 100% agreed upon by all APA members. Too many of them hold personal biases that hold one way or the other that prevent true objective analysis. The APA instead uses a large number of diagnosticians and a large number of studies together as the basis for DSMs.

The increased instances of HIV in homosexuals are left over from the 70s and 80s during which time many gay men exhibited "Ego-dystonic sexual orientation" which resulted in self destructive risky behavior. This diagnosis also soon disappeared because further studies found that the types of stressors homosexuals experienced in youth from family and friends created the condition and those same stressors for different reasons created similar behavior. This is why today they don't treat homosexuality but they do treat anxiety and other mental disorders that homosexuals have from childhood stressors.

The figures for HIV transmission don't support the notion that homosexuality is a lot "worse". In the UK in 2010, the rate was 50% homosexual to 50% heterosexual, despite that fact that anal sex is more likely to transmit the virus, therefore there was a higher rate of "risky" heterosexual activity. 68% of females infected were through heterosexual contact. Homosexual men are statistically more likely to contract gonorrhea, syphilis and anal warts but heterosexual men are more likely to contract herpes, scabies, nongonococcal urethritis and genital warts. What this shows is that risky behaviour is not limited to sexuality and appears across the board.

Have you also considered WHY there is a high prevalence of "mental illness" amongst homosexuals? Gay teenagers are statistically FOUR TIMES more likely to commit suicide and most of that is due to bullying and negative stereotypes inflicted upon them by their heterosexual peers, the media and in some cases, the Government too.

I grew up as a gay man in the UK when gay sex was outlawed until the age of 21 (as opposed to the heterosexual age of consent at 16). At the age of 18 I could legally smoke, drink alcohol, vote, and die for my country but NOT share by bed with a loving partner. Our Government passed a bill (Section 28) that outlawed the "teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". Which meant that while I had to sit through sex education classes, homosexuality was never mentioned, I was not given the support I needed at a vulnerable time and nothing was done about the bullying I received as a result of this negative stereotyping. I almost didn't make it through and many people weren't as lucky as I was.

So I would suggest that a lot of the problems faced by homosexuals stems from the prejudice and intolerance that is still prevalent throughout the world. If everyone accepted their fellow human beings without forcing their own judgements upon them, the statistics would show a much happier outcome. Some people speak words of intolerance or ignorance, some use fists and weapons, others create laws to excuse their behaviour. A Jedi should not condone, practise or tolerate any of these things.

V-Tog wrote:

Star Forge wrote:

V-Tog wrote:

Star Forge wrote: On the other hand, I am personally opposed to homosexuality

How is that 100% for tolerance of homosexuality? You seem to be backpedaling...

I believe you're confusing tolerance with total affirmation and endorsement.

Sorry to disagree, but I know the difference between tolerance and endorsement - but I don't see how you can write on an internet forum that you are against homosexuality for a whole host of (in my and seemingly everyone elses opinion) ridiculous reasons, and also effectively say that you think homosexuality is a mental disorder, when there are quite possibly homosexual people on this forum who will be upset and offended by what you have written. If really you were against homosexuality but also pro-tolerance/anti-discrimination you would probably keep most of your thoughts to yourself.

That's what you'd want me to do, keep my thoughts to myself. That's why these kind of discussion can't happen, because everyone's too hung up on offending someone. I swear, if North Korea had nukes pointed at the whole world, and were about to use them, and everyone knew about it, someone would silence any discussion out of fear of offending North Koreans.


The facts are simply that pro-gay arguments more often than not (and I agree that there are exceptions) the result of the censorship of opposing views due to political pressure by activist groups and the like.

Let me also add that, if there was an actual objective, scientific study that was not influenced by any external forces, and it decided that homosexuality was actually a normal, healthy activity, and all the liberal excuses as to why homosexuals have all the bad statistics were actually true, I would be the first one to admit it. However, when someone tries to follow the official, orthodox party line about homosexuality, all I see is a lot of really loud liberal protesters, combined with a LOT of censorship upon those who disagree.

Now, if you want something to get offended about, I'll tell you about my friend in the IRA and some of the stuff he did back in Armagh.

Star Forge, I assume that you're straight (correct me if I'm wrong). In which case, why are you so concerned about whether or not homosexuality is a "normal, healthy activity"? Would such a "scientific analysis" change the way you act towards gay people?

And what exactly is the "official, orthodox party line about homosexuality"? because attitudes and opinions vary wildly between cultures, faith groups and countries.

Mark Anjuu wrote: Star Forge, I assume that you're straight (correct me if I'm wrong). In which case, why are you so concerned about whether or not homosexuality is a "normal, healthy activity"? Would such a "scientific analysis" change the way you act towards gay people?

And what exactly is the "official, orthodox party line about homosexuality"? because attitudes and opinions vary wildly between cultures, faith groups and countries.

I mean the belief in the Western world that says that there is no more room for discussion about homosexuality, as we've already resolved everything, which is just not true. How I act toward gay people? Dude, I treat them the same as anybody else. Like I said, even if homosexuality were re-classified as a mental illness, I wouldn't advocate criminalizing their behavior, so long as it is consensual and all. I'm not gonna be a chode to somebody just because they're doing something unhealthy. I'd no more beat up a gay person for being gay than I would beat up a fat person for the sake of his fatness.

Star Forge wrote: That's what you'd want me to do, keep my thoughts to myself. That's why these kind of discussion can't happen, because everyone's too hung up on offending someone. I swear, if North Korea had nukes pointed at the whole world, and were about to use them, and everyone knew about it, someone would silence any discussion out of fear of offending North Koreans.


The facts are simply that pro-gay arguments more often than not (and I agree that there are exceptions) the result of the censorship of opposing views due to political pressure by activist groups and the like.

I am not saying that you necessarily should keep your thoughts to yourself, I just think that your talk of tolerance and anti-discrimination is false because you must be aware that some of you words could be hurtful and offensive to some people. Despite what you say you seem to have little consideration for those who are gay and perfectly happy, and you are putting many of your views forward as concrete facts, rather than opinion, when you have no evidence to back them up and other people are going and finding statistical and documented evidence and posting it, which you are largely choosing to ignore as it does not suit your views.

At this point I am going to bow out of the discussion because I am starting to get angry, and I'm not sure that that will help anything as I don't really believe in getting stuck in never-ending arguments.

V-Tog wrote:

Star Forge wrote: That's what you'd want me to do, keep my thoughts to myself. That's why these kind of discussion can't happen, because everyone's too hung up on offending someone. I swear, if North Korea had nukes pointed at the whole world, and were about to use them, and everyone knew about it, someone would silence any discussion out of fear of offending North Koreans.


The facts are simply that pro-gay arguments more often than not (and I agree that there are exceptions) the result of the censorship of opposing views due to political pressure by activist groups and the like.

I am not saying that you necessarily should keep your thoughts to yourself, I just think that your talk of tolerance and anti-discrimination is false because you must be aware that some of you words could be hurtful and offensive to some people. Despite what you say you seem to have little consideration for those who are gay and perfectly happy, and you are putting many of your views forward as concrete facts, rather than opinion, when you have no evidence to back them up and other people are going and finding statistical and documented evidence and posting it, which you are largely choosing to ignore as it does not suit your views.

At this point I am going to bow out of the discussion because I am starting to get angry, and I'm not sure that that will help anything as I don't really believe in getting stuck in never-ending arguments.

I have never ending arguments also. Ain't liberalism a bitch? "By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon, and a thousand pikes were flashing by the rising of the moon.

Star Forge, I only wish that there was no longer a need for discussion. But every day people are being persecuted and even being put to death just for being gay. Pride events are still being picketed by Christian fundamentalists who advocate death, people are still being attacked in the street or in their own homes simply because of who they are. Laws are constantly being debated and revised. It wasn't that long since Proposition 8 in California. Despite the ruling of the EU courts, Moscow is still banning Pride events. The debate is still going on.

Leaving that all aside though, you;re still referring to homosexuality as being "unhealthy". I'm gay, physically and mentally fit, free from disease, in a stable, long-term relationship (of 10 years), have well-adjusted friends and family and the only problems I encounter are from people like my Uncle (a Methodist preacher) who preach tolerance and compassion while saying that I'm going to burn in hell! So I fail to see which part of my life is "unhealthy".


Personally, I think tolerance, ignorance and hate are unhealthy....