Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder?
 

While I was at the dentist this past weekend, they were interviewing this man on the radio who wanted to place homosexuality back in the list of mental disorders, but I can't find an article. Did I mix it up, or is the press just trying to supress this topic because it's run by a bunch of homophobic pricks?

The human condition is a mental disorder of nature I hardly think anyone can legitimately claim something like somones sexual inclination is defect from a 'healthy' mind. People have sugested it before, it is not uncommon and it is rediculous.

This guy finally croaked, that's probably why it's being discussed again recently.

Posted on Sun, Jan. 01, 2006

CHARLES SOCARIDES, 83

Psychiatrist believed homosexuals curable


NEW YORK - (AP) -- Charles Socarides, the psychiatrist famous for insisting that homosexuality was a treatable illness and who claimed to have ''cured'' hundreds, has died. He was 83.

Socarides died Dec. 25 of heart failure at a hospital near his Manhattan home, his family said. A funeral Mass took place Friday.

He waged an unsuccessful battle to reverse the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders and brushed off frequent condemnations by colleagues who considered his views hurtful.

''Gays ascribe their condition to God, but He should not have to take that rap, any more than He should be blamed for the existence of other man-made maladies -- like war,'' he wrote in the Catholic weekly magazine America in 1995.

Socarides persisted in his views, despite having a gay son, Richard, who became an advisor to President Clinton on gay and lesbian affairs.

In the 1990s, he was among the founders of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a nonprofit group based in Encino, Calif., ``dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality.''

A native of Brockton, Mass., Socarides decided he wanted to become a psychoanalyst at age 13 after reading a book on the life of Sigmund Freud. He graduated from Harvard College, earned his medical degree at New York Medical College, and got a certificate in psychoanalytic medicine at Columbia University. He taught at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

Besides his son, he is survived by his wife, Claire, another son, two daughters and one grandchild.

Source

There was a psychiatrist during WWII, who mainly worked with soldiers, I think, but was also supposed to be able to "cure" men of their homosexuality. Anyway, his name was Henry Head. True story! I got that from the Regeneration books, but I think they're pretty factual when it comes to the who's-who of psychiatrists and what they did. Childish, but funny.

Yeah, I've been targetted by the "Church of Light" which claims to give confused and 'lost' people a path to the 'light'. In other words they want to brainwash and rid people of all homosexual influences in order to get them to turn straight. Fucking assholes...the way people view homosexuals, still in this "century of acceptance", makes me want to vommit; in the army, marriages, jobs, etc. There was a recent incident in the army in which a soldier was attacked for being gay and discharged.

Here's the link.

It's just sad that we live in such an elitist society. Thanks E_P_S, that's probably what it was.

"....Sad that we live in such an elitist society...."-Why is this the bad thing?

The elite sould have the most influence and powerfull in society-it's dawrwinism. The strong prosper, it's incentive. That way we evolve. Whats the other option; have things a little more utopian?(This is all in ideal terms of course).

But.

Modern societys infection is the pseudo elite who earn power and influence through birth right. They are not intelligent and lack integrity.

Why is this such a bad thing?*

Look up what elitism is, and then come back and ask me why it's bad.

I still don't see what D-A-R-W-I-N-I-S-M has to do with Homosexuality.

Probably a beginning for a one-gender people :p
I don't know if that society would be cool, or boring

There have been all kinds of fucked up methods for trying to "cure" homosexuality. To include shock therapy.

The showtime series Queer as Folk did an episode or two on one of those therapy groups for homos, where Emmet joined and started dating a lesbian from the same group. It was commical and it pissed me off at the same time.

Thing is, ThinkDifferent, do we really NEED Darwinism anymore? Surely "survival of the fittest" is a little redundant nowadays when it comes to the human animal, overall, in Western societies. We studied this in sociology - human society is (so the theory goes) no longer a model for nature, with things like the welfare state etc. - the physically weak are no longer likely to die out.

Besides which, it's not Darwinism, as it isn't physical strength that makes the "elite" powerful, but economic power. It's Capitalism.

I think this is right. But I'm sure someone will correct me if I've remembered it wrong.

Christ - 1000,000 sperm and you were the fastest?...

One moment..

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahhahaha!!!

Man, that is going in my book of Quotes..

I needed that this morning..

I almost swallowed my Tongue..

Tears..sniffle.. Friggin fun-knee..

Why thank you, E_P_S! Always happy to spread a little happy where happy is needed. Nice to see my name in lights on your sig as well. I always knew I'd be famous one day...

But seriously ... "what's wrong with society being ruled by elitists"? Um, nothing, unless you believe in freedom and the equality of all members of a society in the eyes of the law etc.

I don't mean to sound like a dogmatic bitch, but if you're gonna make a statement like that then you need to qualify it, or it just sounds ignorant. Why can elitism be viewed as positive? What can society gain from it? Explain your position, and you may just get a debate, instead of a cutting remark.

Thank you...for making it sound so much nicer than I had in mind.

At least Matthew Sheppard's picture isn't blazing on the front page of those fucktards website anymore. Tho it is still there. If his family had any balls or brains they'd sue the dogshit out of the fuckers and force them to remove his image and all reference to his name from their site. it is slander, afterall, which is prosecutable. On top of the fact that it is copyright infringement on the behalf of whoever took that photo of him.

People that create websites like this need to be lined up naked in the street, beaten bloody with barbed whips, then shot. period. Or better yet, hang their asses up on the fucking cross.

Furthermore, if anybody had the balls to create a similar sight, say godhates******s.com, it'd most-likely be shut down before anybody knew it existed. (please, no offense to those darker complected boardmates - just making a point). The domain name does exist though its nothing but a search engine. It doesn't spout hatred.

And what the FUCK is it about the miners that died last week? What the hell did they ever do to anybody?

Sorry sacks of maggot shit.

...and look how many visitors they've had. How horrendous.

This is too fucking funny NOT to share:

Xnguela's post got me irritated, thinking about that fucked up site again, which I haven't been to since 8 years ago when I first discovered it. Anyway, I went looking out of curiosity, for articles on the web protesting it, and stumbled across this...
* * *
God Hates FAGS?!?! - A literal re-reading of Genesis 19 proves otherwise. By Kevin Cassell

The activist group God Hates Fags, like many Christian "family-values" organizations, promote the opinion that God abominates homosexuality. But does God really hate fags? Let's find out by reading the most taken-out-of-context, allegedly "antigay" chapter from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible (the Torah if you're Jewish): Genesis 19. Here's where we find the famous tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. While the conventional interpretation of this chapter supposedly affirms God's detestation of homosexuality, when read literally--that is, stripped of its dogmatic context--the chapter reveals quite the opposite: God, in fact, hates straights.

Don't believe me, read for yourself. Here's how the story unfolds, literally: Two angels come to the gate of Sodom, where they are met by Lot. Lot is favored by the Lord Yahweh because he is, unlike the rest of Sodom's population, virtuous. They have come to warn Lot that Yahweh intends to destroy Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah, but that He will allow Lot and his family to flee the city providing they don't look back while doing so.

Kindly old Lot invites the angels into his home for a repast. While they have gathered inside, the men of Sodom congregate outside, horny as hell. They shout for Lot to hand over the angels, so that the men may get to "know" (i.e., have intercourse with) them. They are adamant in their desire to gratify their craven appetites.

At that moment, kindly old Lot comes out and addresses the men. He announces that he'll happily throw them his two young daughters--"which have not yet known man"--so long as they leave the two angels unmolested: "Let me, I pray you, bring my daughters unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes," he pleads. But the men rebuke Lot.

Let's stop here for a moment. For centuries, Church dogma has encouraged Christians to conveniently overlook Lot's astounding lack of paternal concern for or, for that matter, love of his own little girls. By pointing the finger again and again at the perceived homosexuality of these "Sodomites," Christians have lost sight of this chapter's depiction of the vilest sin imaginable--a father's offering of his own children to be gang-banged by an entire city of men--even though it is written in plain text on the sacred page in front of them.

Because the men want to "know" the angels, the logic goes, they are homosexuals. But what kind of logic is that? The only way these Sodomites can get to "know" these celestial beings, homosexually, is by, well, "sodomizing" them. But why would God create angels with rectums? Surely no one shits in heaven.

The story continues: The next morning Lot, his wife, and his two daughters fled the condemned city. As they made their way into the surrounding mountains, "the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone out of heaven." Lot's wife, very understandably, looked back at the inferno engulfing her home. For this act of disobedience she was turned immediately into a pillar of salt, leaving Lot a widower. So much for the sanctity of that marriage!

So Lot shacks up with his two daughters who are, as he had proudly announced to the sex-starved Sodomites, virgins. They live in a cave in the mountains of Zoar. It is here where heterosexuality rears its ugly head. The girls, now young women, start to bemoan their barren wombs. Beset by the pangs of maternal instinct, they conspire to get their father drunk and have sex with him--in order to propagate.

So the eldest gave him wine, "and lay with her father; and he perceived not that she lay down, nor when she arose." The next night the youngest did the same thing and, again, "he perceived not when she lay down, and when she arose." The two daughters, no longer virgins, got what they wanted: pregnant with boys. The eldest bore a son named Moab, who begat the Moabite tribe. The youngest bore a son named Ben-ammi, who begat the Ammonites.

Now, let's interpret these passages literally: God destroys Lot's legitimate marriage over a minor infraction, then allows incest--yes, incest--to replace it! Hmm. Father-daughter incest, the most repugnant manifestation of heterosexual lust, is how Lot is rewarded by God for his "virtue"? And, seeing as the Moabites and Ammonites were doomed to destruction, the poor old guy was even robbed of a legacy of which he could be proud. Does this make sense? And what's all this crap about Lot not "perceiving" his daughters having sex with him? The guy's old, stone-cold drunk, living 3000 years before the introduction of Viagra, but he's still able to get a good enough woody going to deflower and impregnate--via orgasm--both his daughters!

Chapter 19 of the book of Genesis is a savage portrayal of the Lord Yahweh's contempt for people who lead typical, married, family-oriented heterosexual lifestyles. The Bible is clear on this point. From the moment Adam ate of the fruit offered to him by Eve, heterosexuality has been a plague upon humankind and a boon for the Devil. Clearly, it would have been better for Lot and his family to perish in the flames alongside those ravenous men who, despite all their faults, were virtuous enough to refuse to gang **** two innocent little girls. That the Lord Yahweh "saved" Lot only to condemn him to a life as an alcoholic widower conceiving offspring with his own flesh and blood points to something much more detestable in His eyes than the assumed homosexuality of the occupants of Sodom. Only those blinded by religious dogma and a desire to point judgmental fingers at others can deny the irrefutably literal truth of Genesis 19: God hates straights.

* * *

the link: http://kevincassell.com/PERSON/POLITICS/left/sodom.htm for those interested in reading the hate mail he received.

Little-known fact : the name of the city Sodom has nothing to do with anal sex. This word only exists within the English language. Assuming that homosexuality was the downfall of Sodom, people began calling anal sex 'sodomy'.

So the next time some crazy wild-eyed Fundy starts ranting about how the Bible explicitly condemns sodomy because of Sodom and Gomorrah, you can set 'em straight.

All of us fags just need to be straightened out, eh?

Forward Wolfie, Never Straight.

:D