[CANBFORGIVEN]

I have often wondered if the establishments (schools, media, doctor's, businesses) that are promoting a homosexual lifestyle will be the ones held accountable when those who "choose" homosexuality as a lifestyle begin to suffer horrible physical consequences. This is no different than cigarette companies who are now being held responsible for promoting smoking and millions began to die from it. Think about it.

[garyhope]

Yes, but what we do without all those show tunes, ice dancers, decorators, dress designers and hair stylists?

Why heavens to Betsy, we'd just be a mess, a mess I tell you!

[festus]

Probably because most shrinks are gay ............

[wolf78]

Well, the main argument of the article is: Homosexuality is a health risk, mainly because of HIV/AIDS.

That statement, however, is nonsense, as it only takes into account MALE homosexuality. Lesbians indeed have a much LOWER risk than the general population.

From that standpoint, heterosexuality amongst women would also have to be classified a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences.

As a guy I'd have to ask: Who would want this?

[john_88]

The title of the article is a bit odd. We don't normally call something a "disorder" on the basis of medical consequences. People with an inclination to take part in dangerous sports, drive fast cars or climb mount Everest are many times more likely to die young than the rest of us but nobody considers them disordered.

The whole issue of homosexuality needs to be de-medicalised. It is an issue of WORLDVIEW and should be discussed in terms of ethics, not science.