'Ex-Gays' Seek a Say in Schools

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 28, 2006 | Stephanie Simon

[Lucky Dog]

The fact is that the word means what all [emphasis added] the dictionaries tell you it means. All you do by trying to repurpose the word is to create confusion… the majority of the population use the word 'homosexuality' to mean an orientation (which is what it has always meant)… maybe you can provide a quote from a dictionary to back up your statement above [note: segments edited for clarity of intent]

Ok, please note following quote:

Main Entry: 1ho•mo•sex•u•al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex[emphasis added] —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1b —ho•mo•sex•u•al

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I trust the above quote satisfies your challenge.

I noted that you did not try to define the word in such a way to provide clarity in distinguishing actions from mere “feelings” and “thoughts.” Do you intend to do so?

…someone wanting to commit polygomy or is a prostitute is in any way comparable to the mental condition of a homosexual, grossly underestimates the power of homosexuality within the individual with the affliction. It isn't simply something that you "feel". If it was, then it would be far less of a problem than it is.

Your statement referring to homosexuality as an affliction implies that homosexuals are psychotic. Was that your intent? If so, then your diagnosis is at variance with the American Psychology Association. If not, then your statement is in need of some clarification.

[mikeyc]

I'm of no determination to win any discussion on this point. Your medical definition is at odds with the definitions in the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, and in the dictionary that you quoted to make the point about pedophilia.

You are welcome to make your point, and I understand it, but my sole point is the confusion created by using a definition which is contrary to the general accepted definition.

My point is simply made to enable more clear discussion.

If you insist on using homosexuality to describe only someone who indulges in the act, what word would you recomend that we use to refer to a homosexual [using the original meaning of the word] who 'is' homosexual as well as 'does' homosexual?

[mikeyc]

Main Entry: 1ho•mo•sex•u•al Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l Function: adjective 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex[emphasis added] —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1b —ho•mo•sex•u•al

I just want to add that the definition you use does include homosexuals who do not necesarily have sex with those of the same sex, supporting my arguement. Note the first definition.

[Lucky Dog]

If you insist on using homosexuality to describe only someone who indulges in the act, what word would you recomend that we use to refer to a homosexual [using the original meaning of the word] who 'is' homosexual as well as 'does' homosexual?

I submit that no word describing someone who only “feels” or “thinks” is necessary, provided we are not going to class homosexuality as a psychosis. One does not use a word to describe a non-practicing prostitute or non-practicing polygamist, etc. One does not refer to a person who “feels” angry enough to kill another person and “thinks about such, but does not actually do so, a murderer. Therefore, why should there be a word to describe a non-practicing homosexual?

By the way, my previous question to you still stands:

Your statement referring to homosexuality as an affliction implies that homosexuals are psychotic. Was that your intent? If so, then your diagnosis is at variance with the American Psychology Association. If not, then your statement is need of some clarification.

[Fruitbat]

Over the last decade, gay-rights activists have pushed programs to support gay and lesbian students in public schools.

Tactfully stated.

Translated: Over the last decade, gay-rights activists have demanded that programs exist to indoctrinate people to the extent that they are "educated" that homosexuality is not only completely normal, but superior to heterosexuality.

BTW, when do heterosexual programs begin and start to present all the benefits of living a monogamous relationship with one spouse heterosexually???

Just curious. ... Or has that been outlawed already...

What kinds of kooks would people take heterosexuals for if everywhere they went they made an enormous deal out of being heterosexual? Asaninity to the max.

[mikeyc]

Refering to your question that you ask again, my answer is:
i have no idea... I'm not a psychologist.

I'll write a post to explain to you why comparing homosexual attraction to the examples you use is totally inapropriate, and doesn't help your point.

One question I will ask...

I used to indulge in regular homosexual sex. I now choose to be celibate.
I regularly fantasise about homosexually connected thoughts, and i ejaculate over what would be concidered to be homosexual things.

What does that make me if I am not a homosexual? (apart from a pervert).

Since I am no longer a homosexual in your definition, even though the dictionary definition you quoted says that I am, how would you catagorise me?

[Lucky Dog]

I used to indulge in regular homosexual sex. I now choose to be celibate

I regularly fantasise about homosexually connected thoughts, and i ejaculate over what would be concidered to be homosexual things.

Since I am no longer a homosexual in your definition, even though the dictionary definition you quoted says that I am, how would you catagorise me?

I assume you have posed a rhetorical question.

My answer is that one who used to indulge in homosexual activities but no longer does so, and does not intend to do so in the future, is a reformed individual. You would no longer be defined as a homosexual than would a polygamist who has divorced all of his wives but one and has no intention of having more than one in the future. You might properly be classed as former homosexual just as the other individual mentioned here might properly be classed as former polygamist.

As to your sexual fantasies, they are solely yours as long as they remain private. The same would be true if you fantasized bout assassinating the president. However, if you share your fantasies with others with intent to make them something other fantasies in the future, you would be a conspirator.

As to your emission of bodily fluids and the motivations for such, again, as long as such is within the realm of privacy and precipitates no other actions outside that realm, it merely categorizes you as abnormal in terms of your sex drive. Such a categorization (completely within the realm of privacy) is no one’s business but yours.

If your fantasies and actions based upon them cause you to take action in anything other than the realm of privacy, then, we are back to back a definition involving action.

[mikeyc]

That's an interesting reply.

Does this mean that someone can be neither homosexual nor heterosexual?

...or are you saying that even though my private fantasies and sexual attraction is exclusively towards the same sex, I am actually heterosexual?

I'm not convinced that the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary quote you used confirms what you are saying. The quote you used is of an adjective and not a noun.
The noun version simply says:

Main Entry: 2homosexual
Function: noun
: a homosexual individual and especially a male

So it doesn't give a proper definition. Whereas the quotes I used from the Cambridge and 'MedTerms.com Medical Dictionary' dictionaries were very clear that homosexuality refers to my own case. I'll repeat it here again for convenience:

homosexual (noun) a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex
--Cambridge Dictionary

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).
--MedTerms.com Medical Dictionary

[Lucky Dog]

Does this mean that someone can be neither homosexual nor heterosexual?

...or are you saying that even though my private fantasies and sexual attraction is exclusively towards the same sex, I am actually heterosexual?

Except for a few unfortunate individuals who suffer from hermaphroditism, every human being is heterosexual as defined by the presence of genitalia of one, or the other, sex. Regardless of behavior, the genitalia of individual human beings do not change (beyond maturing) after their initial appearance in the fetus. Therefore, absent surgical intervention, everyone remains a heterosexual individual. Consequently, your question and the discussion becomes one about behavior versus mental activity.

If one suffers from a mental disorder, it proper to class them accordingly, i.e., a manic-depressive, a schizophrenic, an autistic, etc. On the other hand, absent a psychosis, the mere presence of thought patterns without some sort of action does not classify human beings.

One is not classed as a mathematician for merely thinking about numbers. To be classed as such, one must not only think about numbers, but one must act, e.g., writing treatises on mathematical proofs. To be classed as a musician, one must not only think accordingly but must perform or write music (i.e., act) to make such thoughts publicly known. Similarly, one is not an scientist for merely thinking about science, etc.

In short, outside the diagnosis of a psychosis, it is inappropriate to class a human being on the basis of thought since such can only be known on the basis of some action, even if that action is the mere confession of the thought.

If you choose to class homosexuality as a psychosis, then it would be appropriate to class a human being thus on the basis of having a certain category of thought. On the other hand, if homosexuality is not a psychosis, then like all of the other labels we apply to our fellow humans, this label is appropriate only if the thoughts (or “feelings,” if you prefer) are accompanied by action.

homosexual (noun) a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex --Cambridge Dictionary

My immediate question involving this definition is how does some one know if another human being is a homosexual unless there is some action? Unless, the supposed homosexual self confesses (an action, in itself) or participates in a homosexual activity, there is no way to know what attractions exist in the homosexual brain or heterosexual brain, for that matter. The parallel is, as I noted earlier, just because some one is angry enough to kill another, and even thinks, or fantasizes, about it, that person is not classed as a murderer. Consequently, if there is no action (including the action of self confession), there is no way for any other person to know who is a homosexual, is there?

Now to the question you posed directly, let me answer with a question: Unless they are psychotic symptoms, whatever feelings or attractions you may have, or lack, if you never act on them, are you a murderer, a polygamist, a prostitute, a musician, etc.?

As to dueling definitions, I provided you with a bona fide “dictionary definition” that fit my usage. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to establish such as a debate term. If you wish to challenge, then it is merely a case pitting one authority against another with no net gain accomplished. On the other hand, we can agree for the purposes of discussion and debate on a definition and proceed thence. For reasons I have cited above, I maintain my position that unacted-upon “feelings” are irrelevant to the debate/discussion unless you are going class homosexuality as a psychosis.

[supercat]

I submit that no word describing someone who only “feels” or “thinks” is necessary, provided we are not going to class homosexuality as a psychosis.

Sexual arousal is a measurable physiological phenomenon. If one person is aroused by imagery of opposite-sex individuals, while another is aroused only by imagery of the same-sex individuals, I would think that to be a distinction worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their arousal.

One thing liberals are very good at is blurring the lines between the issues of phsiological attraction versus overt action. On the one hand they argue that it's unfair to punish gays for being attracted to same-sex individuals (and in that, they're correct--attraction which is not acted upon should not be punished), which they call "being gay". Then they use the fact that it's unfair to punish people for "being gay" to argue against punishing people for engaging in homosexual sodomy (i.e. "being gay").

I think it is important to use different terminology to distinguish the two phenomena (attraction versus action). Whether or not one wishes to call homosexual attraction a psychosis, it's impossible to have meaningful discussions without recognizing it as a phenomenon distinct from homosexual sodomy.

[Lucky Dog]

Sexual arousal is a measurable physiological phenomenon. If one person is aroused by imagery of opposite-sex individuals, while another is aroused only by imagery of the same-sex individuals, I would think that to be a distinction worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their arousal.

Extreme anger or extreme fear are both measurable physiological phenomenon. Do you, similarly, think that these are distinctions worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their “feelings?”

… which they call "being gay"…

Another abuse of the English language. While I find the term “sexual orientation” objectionable, it is far less so than “gay.” How one “feels” is irrelevant absent an action or psychosis.

Then they use the fact that it's unfair to punish people for "being gay"

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is, or ever was in history, punished for how they “feel” if there was no action on those “feelings” in some way.

I think it is important to use different terminology to distinguish the two phenomena (attraction versus action).

Very well, if you think that the point is that important, I will concede to using the term “homosexually oriented” for those who “feel” but do not act on their “feelings” in any way. For the purpose of this discussion, I still wish to reserve the term “homosexual” for those who act on their “feelings” in some manner resulting in a confession of such “homosexual orientation” or an actual act of homosexual activity.

Whether or not one wishes to call homosexual attraction a psychosis, it's impossible to have meaningful discussions without recognizing it as a phenomenon distinct from homosexual sodomy.

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

Exactly why do you think it's impossible to have meaningful discussions without recognizing it[ homosexual attraction] as a phenomenon distinct from homosexual sodomy. I have no problem with leaving an individual’s private thoughts and fantasies to themselves as long as there is no action on them.

[mikeyc]

Except for a few unfortunate individuals who suffer from hermaphroditism, every human being is heterosexual as defined by the presence of genitalia of one, or the other, sex.

I'm sorry to appear rude, but where are you sourcing your information?
Your definition of 'heterosexual' is wrong.

heterosexual
noun (INFORMAL hetero)
a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex
--Cambridge Dictionary

heterosexual
• adjective 1 sexually attracted to the opposite sex. 2 involving or characterized by such sexual attraction.
• noun a heterosexual person.
Oxford Dictionary

Definition of Heterosexual
Heterosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. Or a person who has sexual relations with the opposite sex. Colloquially known as "straight."
The term "heterosexual" can also be an adjective.
--MedTerms.com Medical Dictionary

As to dueling definitions, I provided you with a bona fide “dictionary definition” that fit my usage.

I'm sorry, but you haven't provided a dictionary definition that fits your usage. You provided an adjective, not a noun, and this is what you provided:

Main Entry: 1ho•mo•sex•u•al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex

Even with you highlighting the part of it that you wish to represent the whole of it (in your post 60), It doesn't begin to support your definition, and yet it fully supports the definition that most people understand.
So far, you haven't provided anything to support what you are saying.

Yes, a homosexual might be "involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex", but as the description states, that is just one part of it.


I began this discussion because I saw that there were two definitions being used to describe homosexuality, and I saw a great deal of potential confusion in this.
If you are being serious here, then there's a great deal more confusion that I thought.
I really don't understand why you (or someone) have created brand new definitions for internationally accepted terms. It appears almost 'cultish' in it's absurdity. I don't want to be rude, but it really does appear that way to me.
Why not create new words to describe this different approach, rather than attempting to redefine established words?

If, for arguments sake, I go along with your new definitions, then I have some more questions in order to clarify what you mean. I am speaking with standard usage of the English language, so I don't see that I need to explain what I mean by the terms... simply look it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean.

From your definition, if I admit to homosexual attraction, then I am a homosexual, but if I don't admit to it, even if it is my condition, then I am not a homosexual?... so by telling a friend or a doctor or you, I become a homosexual by my admittance?

My immediate question involving this definition is how does some one know if another human being is a homosexual unless there is some action? Unless, the supposed homosexual self confesses (an action, in itself) or participates in a homosexual activity, there is no way to know what attractions exist in the homosexual brain or heterosexual brain, for that matter.

Indeed, how would you know?... The answer is that you don't know. But... the homosexual knows. The man with the same sex attraction knows. He can pretend he is heterosexual, and can fool everyone that he never has been a homosexual (or is cured of it), but he is the one who knows.

Homosexuality could be seen as an addiction. Like a chain-smoker, just because you give it up doesn't mean that you don't sometimes have cravings for it... and then on that fateful day when you are offered a cigarette and you take it without thinking, or just can't resist the temptation, and ... wham!... back on 60 a day.
Of course there are those who will never smoke again, as there are homosexuals who recover and those who live with it without any further indulgence... but, to suggest that a homosexual isn't a homosexual as long as he is secretive about it... well, that isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.

To use your own suggested comparison... I am a musician, and I have learned to play the piano very well. Just because I don't play publicly, that doesn't stop me being a musician. I may not play the piano for years, but I will always be identified as being a musician... When I eventually sit down again at the piano, I don't suddenly become a musician again. I have that talent, and I learned my instrument, so I am a musician... even if I don't indulge it.

[Lucky Dog]

I began this discussion because I saw that there were two definitions being used to describe homosexuality, and I saw a great deal of potential confusion in this.

It is a fairly common debate procedure to define terms in a specific way just for the purposes of that particular debate. However, it is obvious that your are struggling with this artifice. Consequently, I submit that you may substitute the term “homosexual practitioner” everywhere in past posts of mine for the simple term “homosexual.” Additionally, in the future I shall endeavor to use the term “homosexual practitioner” to refer to one who engages in homosexual activity. Will that resolve your confusion?

My immediate question involving this definition is how does some one know if another human being is a homosexual unless there is some action? Unless, the supposed homosexual self confesses (an action, in itself) or participates in a homosexual activity, there is no way to know what attractions exist in the homosexual brain or heterosexual brain, for that matter.

Indeed, how would you know?... The answer is that you don't know. But... the homosexual knows.

Again, unless you are going define homosexuality as a psychosis, who cares? As I have pointed out many times on this thread: The parallel is, as I noted earlier, just because some one is angry enough to kill another, and even thinks, or fantasizes, about it, but does not act on those thoughts and emotions, that person is not classed as a murderer. The person who is angry “knows,” as well. However, if he, or she, controls his, or her, behavior, society does not care one whet.

The man with the same sex attraction knows. He can pretend he is heterosexual, and can fool everyone that he never has been a homosexual (or is cured of it), but he is the one who knows.

Again, unless you are going define homosexuality as a psychosis, who cares? Behavior is the key issue. Again, as I noted before:

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

Homosexuality could be seen as an addiction. Like a chain-smoker, just because you give it up doesn't mean that you don't sometimes have cravings for it... and then on that fateful day when you are offered a cigarette and you take it without thinking, or just can't resist the temptation, and ... wham!... back on 60 a day.

Now, you are talking behavior again. As you have insisted, there is a distinction. If there is no homosexual behavior, there is no problem unless you are going to classify homosexuality as a psychosis. If you so classify the activity, then homosexual practitioners should seek, or be forcibly referred to, psychiatric treatment. However, based upon my readings, most homosexual practitioners do not wished to be classified as psychotic. Furthermore, these homosexual practitioners have convinced the APA to revoke the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

… but, to suggest that a homosexual isn't a homosexual as long as he is secretive about it... well, that isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.

Again, who cares? If those with “homosexual orientation” are not “homosexual practitioners,” then neither they nor society are the worse for it. (Of course, if you are going to classify the “homosexual practitioner” as a psychotic, that is a different story.)

To use your own suggested comparison... I am a musician, and I have learned to play the piano very well. Just because I don't play publicly, that doesn't stop me being a musician…

My point was that just “thinking” or “feeling” something about music did not make you a musician. You must have taken some action to be classed as a musician, i.e., learned to play and perform. If you no longer perform, then you can be properly classed as a former musician. In like fashion, if you only “thought” or “felt” homosexual orientation, but did not act on it, then you were no more a homosexual practitioner than some one who had never “thought” or “felt” in such a way. If you were, at one time, a homosexual practitioner, but no longer engage, and no longer plan to engage, in such activity, then your are properly classed as a former homosexual practitioner.”

If you have never been a homosexual practitioner or have renounced being a homosexual practitioner and honestly never intend to engage in that activity, again, the net result is the same as far as society is concerned. Nobody, but you, knows what you think and/or feel unless you take some action. Consequently, to use the term agreed upon in this thread, being homosexually oriented is meaningless.

[supercat]

Sexual arousal is a measurable physiological phenomenon. If one person is aroused by imagery of opposite-sex individuals, while another is aroused only by imagery of the same-sex individuals, I would think that to be a distinction worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their arousal.

Extreme anger or extreme fear are both measurable physiological phenomenon. Do you, similarly, think that these are distinctions worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their “feelings?”

In some cases, yes. If a person suffers from a particular phobia, for example, it may be useful to recognize it even if (perhaps for reasons outside the person's control) it does not particularly affect their actions.

Another abuse of the English language. While I find the term “sexual orientation” objectionable, it is far less so than “gay.” How one “feels” is irrelevant absent an action or psychosis.

I agree that the use of the term "gay" to refer to two different phenomena in an effort to equate them them is an abuse of the English language. Trying to pretend that one of the phenomena doesn't exist, however, won't clarify the issue.

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

There are people who find their attraction to others of the same sex to be a problem which they manage to solve. So for such people I would guess that would seem to meet your definition.

Here again, though, liberals play games with definitions. Homosexual orientation is a psychosis when gays find it convenient to regard it as such (anti-discrimination laws and such), but not when such classification would imply that some effort should be made to "cure it".

[Lucky Dog]

Extreme anger or extreme fear are both measurable physiological phenomenon. Do you, similarly, think that these are distinctions worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their “feelings?”

In some cases, yes. If a person suffers from a particular phobia, for example, it may be useful to recognize it even if (perhaps for reasons outside the person's control) it does not particularly affect their actions. [emphasis added]

A particular individual or a psychologist may be interested in resolving the sufferer’s phobias, or other conditions, etc. However, as an outside observer (and society would similarly qualify), I do not think that the sufferers of these conditions are entitled to present their conditions to school children or that the sufferers are entitled to any rights beyond those accorded to other citizens because they possess such a condition.

As I noted before, if the sufferers of these conditions do not engage in any detrimental activities as a result of their conditions, who cares (beyond that particular individual and his or her psychologist)?

Another abuse of the English language. [use the word “gay” to describe those with homosexual tendencies] While I find the term “sexual orientation” objectionable, it is far less so than “gay.” How one “feels” is irrelevant absent an action or psychosis.

I agree that the use of the term "gay" to refer to two different phenomena in an effort to equate them them is an abuse of the English language. Trying to pretend that one of the phenomena doesn't exist, however, won't clarify the issue.

Nobody is trying to pretend that a phenomenon doesn’t exist. My point remains that as long as any phenomenon precipitates no adverse action on the part of its possessor, then that phenomenon is irrelevant to anyone but its possessor.

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

There are people who find their attraction to others of the same sex to be a problem which they manage to solve. So for such people I would guess that would seem to meet your definition.

You have correctly identified the paradox that homosexual practitioners are trying to turn into scam. Additionally, those who refuse to logically think the situation through are helping perpetrate this scam on the American public.

By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. If you maintain that homosexual practitioners and those so oriented are suffering from a psychosis, then you must maintain that the APA should reverse their position and reclassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Your position must also be that the APA make homosexuality properly the subject of psychological treatment and cure. Additionally, you must also stand against those militant homosexual practitioners, and those so oriented, who have demanded special rights, beyond those rights for the handicapped, for a mental disease. Furthermore, you must support the right of those former sufferers to have access to the same forum for the purpose of counter argument that homosexual practitioners are granted.

[mikeyc]

I'm going to confront you with some primary issues that I have with your analysis, but first of all…

Additionally, in the future I shall endeavor to use the term “homosexual practitioner” to refer to one who engages in homosexual activity. Will that resolve your confusion?

Since this discussion, from my part, has been about people here using the word "homosexual" incorrectly, your use of the term "homosexual practitioner" to describe a homosexual who indulges in homosexual sex does resolve the confusion for anyone who uses the word 'homosexual' to mean... homosexual... in the universally accepted meaning of the word...

...although you are not the only person to have had confusion with this word on here.

Thank you for helping us to clarify what we are actually talking about.

[mikeyc]

I'd like to confront some important points that I need to clarify...

Unless, the supposed homosexual self confesses (an action, in itself) or participates in a homosexual activity, there is no way to know what attractions exist in the homosexual brain or heterosexual brain, for that matter.

Indeed, how would you know?... The answer is that you don't know. But... the homosexual knows.

Again, unless you are going define homosexuality as a psychosis, who cares?

To check that we are discussing the same meaning of the word:

psychosis
noun [C or U] plural psychoses
any of a number of the more severe mental diseases that make you believe things that are not real: -- Cambridge Dictionary

Homosexual attraction is very real, and is not imagined by the individual. A homosexual is sexually attracted to the same sex in just the same way that a heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex. It's a very complicated condition, and has many variables. In some individuals it may be a psychosis... but I believe that in most homosexuals it probably isn't... hence the great difficulty and very large failure rate in attempts to cure it.

My point was that just “thinking” or “feeling” something about music did not make you a musician. You must have taken some action to be classed as a musician, i.e., learned to play and perform.

Of course. Otherwise everyone would be considered to be a musician. Most people have thoughts and feelings about music.

However... Just as a musician learns his instrument by private practice alone, so does a homosexual 'learn' and reinforce his sexual orientation while alone, through fantasies and masturbation.

If you no longer perform, then you can be properly classed as a former musician.

Musicians are usually referred to as musicians, even if they no longer practice their skill in public with others. They may still enjoy it alone and privately... as homosexuals who may no longer 'perform' with others, will still enjoy it alone and in private. 'Former musicians' and 'former homosexual practitioners'?... Not necessarily logical, due to their continued 'practice' in private, but for the sake of argument, why not?


If you have never been a homosexual practitioner or have renounced being a homosexual practitioner and honestly never intend to engage in that activity, again, the net result is the same as far as society is concerned. Nobody, but you, knows what you think and/or feel unless you take some action. Consequently, to use the term agreed upon in this thread, being homosexually oriented is meaningless.

Regarding those who have never been a homosexual practitioner, I agree with you. No-one will ever know. But regarding others, I'm sorry, but I disagree.
You talk about the private feelings and sexual same-sex desires as if they don't matter at all to the public. You suggest that society has total trust in a former homosexual practitioner's declaration. I'm sorry to be rude, but I get the impression that you are either not a homosexual, and never have been, or you are painting a rosey picture of how you would like it to be.

"…and honestly never intend to engage in that activity, again,…"

I've spoken to many 'former homosexuals' online, married with children and unmarried individuals, and I have been a member of groups online for 'former homosexuals'. Very many of them "honestly never intend to engage in that activity", and repeat that intention after each time they masturbate to homosexual porn, or go and find casual homosexual sex because they can no longer resist the temptation. I can honestly say that all those who I have spoken with, every one of them struggles on a daily basis with their homosexual orientation.
To say that "being homosexually oriented is meaningless" belittles and negates the true hardship that so many of them go through.


You repeat the question "who cares?" saying that society is only interested in behaviour, and suggest that any former homosexual's previous behaviour is no longer regarded.

I'll put this extreme case to you... A convicted paedophile who has served time in jail, and on release, convinces the authorities that he is cured, applies for a teaching job at the school that your children attend.

Would you not care? Would none of the parents care?

Somehow I think that they would care a great deal. There are reasons why a convicted paedophile remains on a paedophile register, long after he has served his sentence (in the UK, anyway). The reason he remains on a register and the reason he isn't allowed to work with children is because society "cares" about what has gone on in his head that caused him to be a paedophile. They "care" that they don't want it to happen again. They "care" about what currently goes on in his head… not because they especially care for him, but because they care about the potential danger to others.

Another case for you... I am a former homosexual practitioner. It may be known by many people that I have led that lifestyle. I apply for a job as a Scout leader.
Would you think it right that I should be allowed to have that position if I am fully qualified for it, and I appear to be the best candidate to do the job?
Do you think that the parents of those boys would be justifiably concerned if I, a former homosexual practitioner was given charge of their boys?

My own opinion is that they would be concerned, and that they would be concidering the homosexually orientation which you regard meaningless... the homosexually orientation which causes such grief and lifelong struggle for those who wish to be changed from it... which is a constant temptation for the majority of former homosexual practitioners.

It's a mistake to disregard sexual orientation. It may in some way be politically advantageous by some to do so, but it creates a potential danger to the public.


Maybe i am misunderstanding what you are saying, or maybe I'm still getting my head around a different way of approaching the subject. I haven't been in FR very long, but I am genuinely concerned about the reality of the dangers of homosexuality within society. I'm hoping that others might me able to help me with this too.

Of course, Former homosexual practitioners need to be helped and supported on their journey, but the reality of their situation is that "intentions" can fail.
Temptation is harmful to all… I'm only interested in reality… the truth… and not in agendas that distort reality for their own ends, from either side of any argument.

I put the safety and the security of vulnerable individuals in society first… before any homosexual, former homosexual, former homosexual practitioner, or any other category that may pop up along the way. I'm sure that we agree on that.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Homosexual attraction is very real, and is not imagined by the individual.

It is a phantasmagoric creation from within a disturbed human mind...

Paraphrasing Thomas Hobbes:

Those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, are representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.

An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colors, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifies to see.

They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination.

Whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker.

[mikeyc]

"It is a phantasmagoric creation from within a disturbed human mind..."


Thank you for that.

I understand that the majority of humans who enjoy sexual activity also enjoy fantasies and imaginings which stimulate and enhance the experience. These imaginings might come under the header 'creative pleasure'.

I don't think any of this is exclusive to homosexuality...
or am I missing a point you are making?

[Lucky Dog]

To check that we are discussing the same meaning of the word:

psychosis
noun [C or U] plural psychoses
any of a number of the more severe mental diseases that make you believe things that are not real: -- Cambridge Dictionary

Allow me to present a couple more detailed definitions of the word from other sources for your consideration. I have emphasized with bold underlined text the portions that I would like to particularly call to your attention.

Psychosis - A group of symptoms in major mental illness that include loss of contact with reality, and breakdown of normal social functioning, and extreme personality changes. Psychotic episodes may be short-lived or chronic and worsening. People affected may experience hallucinations, delusions, regressive behavior, and an inability to control impulses. --- Mental Health Glossary

Psychosis A mental disorder characterised by gross impairment in reality testing as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behaviour without apparent awareness on the part of the patient of the incomprehensibility of his behaviour, the term is also used in a more general sense to refer to mental disorders in which mental functioning is sufficiently impaired as to interfere grossly with the patients capacity to meet the ordinary demands of life.

Historically, the term has been applied to many conditions, for example manic depressive psychosis, that were first described in psychotic patients, although many patients with the disorder are not judged psychotic. --- The On-line Medical Dictionary

The common thread throughout these definitions are as follows:

First, a psychosis is a mental disorder.

Second, a psychosis usually distorts the sufferer’s perception of reality usually (but not always) resulting in dysfunctional behaviors.

Let us examine the application of particularly the second point above in relation to homosexual practitioners and those so oriented. A distortion of reality can be judged to exist in the mind of the homosexual practitioner in that his or her perception of the natural function of his or her genitalia does not conform to reality.

The natural function of human genitalia is complementary to the opposite sex and its primary purpose is procreation, i.e., propagation of the species. The homosexual practitioner and those so oriented, engage, or wish to engage, in activities that can in no way be judged to be providing complementary function of genitalia with the opposite sex. Additionally, homosexual activity can in no way result in procreation.

The bottom line conclusion is that homosexual activity and/or the desire for such can only be the result of a distorted view of reality. Additionally, homosexual activity is dysfunctional in that it can never result in procreation.

Homosexual attraction is very real, and is not imagined by the individual...

This adds to the evidence that homosexual activity and the unreasonable inclination to it are the result of a distorted view of reality.

In some individuals it may be a psychosis... but I believe that in most homosexuals it probably isn't... hence the great difficulty and very large failure rate in attempts to cure it.

There are, unfortunately, a number of mental disorders that suffer from a very large failure rate in attempts to cure. However, such does not change the fact these mental disorder are still classes as mental disorders and attempts find cures continue.

My point was that just “thinking” or “feeling” something about music did not make you a musician. You must have taken some action to be classed as a musician, i.e., learned to play and perform.

Of course. Otherwise everyone would be considered to be a musician. Most people have thoughts and feelings about music.

However... Just as a musician learns his instrument by private practice alone, so does a homosexual 'learn' and reinforce his sexual orientation while alone, through fantasies and masturbation.

Regardless of whether an action is taking place in private or in public, there is still an action. This situation is in contrast to the existence of thoughts or feelings on which no action is taken, either in private or public. Therefore, my point stands as originally postulated.

If you no longer perform, then you can be properly classed as a former musician.

Musicians are usually referred to as musicians, even if they no longer practice their skill in public with others. They may still enjoy it alone and privately... as homosexuals who may no longer 'perform' with others, will still enjoy it alone and in private. 'Former musicians' and 'former homosexual practitioners'?... Not necessarily logical, due to their continued 'practice' in private, but for the sake of argument, why not?

Please note the argument in the previous section. There is still an action occurring. If musicians are practicing in private versus public, they are still practicing, i.e., an action is occurring. Again, this is in contrast to mere thoughts and feelings unacted upon.

… Consequently, to use the term agreed upon in this thread, being homosexually oriented is meaningless.

Regarding those who have never been a homosexual practitioner, I agree with you…. regarding others, I'm sorry, but I disagree.

The parallel is, as I noted earlier, just because some one is angry enough to kill another, and even thinks, or fantasizes, about it, but does not act on those thoughts and emotions, that person is not classed as a murderer.

While someone who has previously committed murder, may be more suspect of a second offense, even our court system does not allow such to be introduced as evidence of guilt of a second murder. In short, the individual previously guilty of murder, may be angry enough to kill another person a second time, and even think, or fantasize, about it, but if the former murderer does not act on those thoughts and emotions, that person is not classed as a murderer a second time. Put another way, having the “orientation” to commit murder is meaningless in the absence of action or psychosis.

You talk about the private feelings and sexual same-sex desires as if they don't matter at all to the public.

In deed, the private feelings and thoughts of an individual are totally unimportant to the public in the absence of any action (please note that self-confession is an action) or psychosis.

You suggest that society has total trust in a former homosexual practitioner's declaration.

You have incorrectly interpreted my remarks. However, to your point, a former homosexual practitioner's declaration concerning a repeat offense would most likely be in the same category for the public as a former murderer’ declaration concerning a repeat offense.

I'm sorry to be rude, but I get the impression that you are either not a homosexual, and never have been, or you are painting a rosey picture of how you would like it to be.

You are correct in your assessment concerning my sexual activity. Nonetheless, I was not attempting to paint a “rosey picture.” Rather, I was using logic to make a point.

"…and honestly never intend to engage in that activity, again,…"

I've spoken to many 'former homosexuals' online… [they] "honestly never intend to engage in that activity", and repeat that intention … because they can no longer resist the temptation…

The inability to control one’s actions is symptomatic of a psychosis. If your intent is buttress the argument that homosexual behavior is a mental disorder, you are making a strong case.

To say that "being homosexually oriented is meaningless" belittles and negates the true hardship that so many of them go through.

Being homosexually oriented is, in deed, meaningless to society, if there is no action or psychosis present. There is not belittlement in this statement, merely pure fact and logic.

You repeat the question "who cares?" saying that society is only interested in behaviour, and suggest that any former homosexual's previous behaviour is no longer regarded.

Again, you are extrapolating my remarks too far. The intent is in terms of logic. However, let me assure you that just former felons who never engage in crime again are still held in suspicion and denied certain privileges and rights, so, too, is the case for former homosexual practitioners.

I'll put this extreme case to you... A convicted paedophile who has served time in jail, and on release, convinces the authorities that he is cured, applies for a teaching job at the school that your children attend.

Again, you have taken a statement intended to illustrate a point of logic and extrapolated it too far. Therefore, allow me to defer any address of such.

Another case for you...

As with your previous statement, you have, again, extrapolated an argument in logic too far. Once more, please allow me to defer and keep the discussion on its original track.

My own opinion is that they would be concerned, and that they would be concidering the homosexually orientation which you regard meaningless... the homosexually orientation which causes such grief and lifelong struggle for those who wish to be changed from it... which is a constant temptation for the majority of former homosexual practitioners.

Temptation is a constant struggle for every human being in differing spheres. The existence of thoughts and feelings that are not acted upon, are, in deed, meaningless for anyone, but the individual experiencing those thoughts and feelings.

It's a mistake to disregard sexual orientation. It may in some way be politically advantageous by some to do so, but it creates a potential danger to the public.

Once again, if your intent is to classify homosexual behavior and the “orientation” toward such behavior as a psychosis, you are making a very powerful argument.

Maybe i am misunderstanding what you are saying, or maybe I'm still getting my head around a different way of approaching the subject. I haven't been in FR very long, but I am genuinely concerned about the reality of the dangers of homosexuality within society. I'm hoping that others might me able to help me with this too.

Your concern about the dangers of homosexual behavior and the orientation toward it are laudable. In deed, I am also concerned. However, the first step in addressing this problem (or any problem, for that matter) is to strip it of all emotional and propagandistic baggage, i.e., call it exactly what it is. Reality in assessment is essential. Twisting the language to call something “gay” to avoid correct naming it is just one such example. Another is pretending that homosexual activity is not a violation of the natural function of sex. Yet another is insisting that homosexual behavior should somehow entitle its practitioners to rights not afforded the practitioner of any other detrimental behavior.

Of course, Former homosexual practitioners need to be helped and supported on their journey, but the reality of their situation is that "intentions" can fail. Temptation is harmful to all… I'm only interested in reality… the truth… and not in agendas that distort reality for their own ends, from either side of any argument.

You must first do as I suggested above. Strip the argument to its unemotional, unvarnished essentials. Then you must rigorously and mercilessly apply valid logic and take note of only facts, but all of the facts.

I put the safety and the security of vulnerable individuals in society first… before any homosexual, former homosexual, former homosexual practitioner, or any other category that may pop up along the way. I'm sure that we agree on that.

To a degree you are correct. However, I must add a caveat: Security at the sacrifice of reasonable liberty is not worth it. All of life is a balance between conflicting rights, liberties, and responsibilities. The balance must be struck carefully.