Homosexuality is a Mental Illness

Why should we care about what one individual has to say about homosexuality? Is he a researcher? What are his credentials?

Sorry, but I'll take the word of the scientists who have studied this issue for decades over the word of some anti-gay nobody with very little to back up his opinions.

Sure, you can say that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was all a conspiracy, or all based on politics, but you could say that about almost anything. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Show us some research, and then I'll take you seriously.

You seem to have a penchant for writing taboo and inflammatory “articles.” Do you enjoy getting a rise out of others? Do you enjoy insulting and degrading people and making them feel like lesser human beings?

As a member of the “Church” community, do you not understand that the true intention behind your words is to inflict and provoke harm against others? Do you understand that by deceiving your readers into thinking you came to these conclusions based on a scientific analysis you are being dishonest and hypocritical?

Framing a moral and spiritual argument in scientific terminology not only makes for hopelessly confused pseudoscience, it also betrays the integrity of your Christian foundations as valid beliefs within and of themselves. If you intend on gay bashing because it goes against your religious beliefs, just say so.

The most important thing I think you should acknowledge is that you are not living up to your Christian ideals when you publically proclaim opinions that denigrate, stigmatize, and ostracize groups who already have a history of persecution and marginalization. The mission of Pride not to convert others to homosexuality but to help its members cope with the discrimination and harassment they receive on a daily basis and to help them live peacefully among those who take pleasure in spreading messages of hate.

"Abnormality of behavior is obvious, given the strong correlates with counterculture, various drug excesses, and Gender Identity Disorder, or as I like to name it, the next disorder to be taken out of the DSM because of politics."

I love how the author tries to sound "scientific" and yet still goes and makes this idiotic fallacy. First of all GID is completely separate from sexual orientation- not everyone with GID is technically gay, and not everyone who's gay has gender identity issues. Second, there is no definitive answer for the "correlates" between being gay and being involved in self-destructive behavior, but most social scientists who've studied this issue have said it's because of stress and disenfranchisement caused by mainstream society's criticisms of non-straights- precisely the kind of crap Gryboski is perpetuating here.

An opinion article is an opinion article--yes. But shouldn't the source be considered as well? Is this columnist an expert or a student on the subject of psychology or just a random person? It's not even a well written opinion. Nothing in this article suggest scientific or even modern support for his argument. And there appears to be two maybe three arguments anyway. Is homosexuality widely accepted as evident in pride parades? Should homosexuality be considered a mental disorder? Should politics stay out of psychology? Or just a cliche "What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular"? Either way there is no strong case made for any of these points.

Whether or not I agree with the opinion seems almost moot in a country with freedom of speech and press but quality of writing and rhetoric should be considered when it comes to sensitive, controversial, and hurtful topics being published in credible publications. When it comes to the standards we hold our media, even if I am outraged, I would rather read high quality hate speech than imbecilic.

What is all this nonsense about abolishing the Pride Alliance?

to, "refute it or accept it" i'd just like to point out: nothing you point out says anything scientifically and it's entirely subjective. ever think that the 80% of the APA who did not approve the removal was doing so for their own political reasons? Homsexuality wasn't exactly at its height of popularity - That was 1973 - there's been a tremendous amount of research since then.
And social or genetic or not, the argument that you're making that "scientifically" homosexuality is a mental illness is comparable to arguments like "scientifically" black people have smaller brains or "scientifically" men are smarter than women. These views shape science to reflect their own personal opinions and are intended to perpetuate oppression. I'm not going to refute your argument with scientific evidence because your argument isn't based on scientific evidence, and you need to get over yourself. Your little opinion piece in the broadside isn't going to change anyones view on homosexuality, it is what it is, an opinion piece.

This guy's probably thinking about shlongs right now.

My responsibilities in SG never touch issues of psychology. Abolishing Pride Alliance would be a good idea, but in order to do so there would have to be some entity still focused on monitoring homophobia. Until some entity within the University could fulfill that duty sufficiently, we do need the Pride Alliance.

Individuals who suffer from paraphilias are not subscribed the measures suggested, which means they wouldn't be or shouldn't be applied to homosexuality.

As with all mental illness, treatment would have to be voluntary since all who suffer from any plastic mental illness have to have a willingness to be cured. In truth, given social climate putting homosexuality back in probably wouldn't change much.

Speaking of fun ideas, what about the current situation with psychology? No one can be comfortable knowing that all one needs to change the definitions of sane and insane is heavy political pressure. By the way, still no evidence brought up to refute the points mentioned in the article.

What garbage.