Out of those two? the first is probably the worst, but to both options in general? The community is wrong in both of them.

Don't get me wrong. I do agree that the outright majority of cases for said conditions need treatment, as they provide no benefit at all to the person. I'm just saying in some rare cases, said conditions can provide benefits and insight into things that others oversee, another perspective on things. 

Indeed, if it's having a negative impact on one's own, then I'm one of the first to strongly suggest to seek treatment.

EDIT: Vincent van Gough had bipolar. I think many would see the effects of that through his works (including the one on himself).

I'm using extremes for a reason, obviously homosexuality is not as extreme as Schizophrenia, or Depression (I've worked at a Mental Health Agency - CAMH, unless you have a direct family member with this condition, I'se probably had a lot more experience with people like this then you), however that's not to say it isn't negatively affecting. Most homosexuals go through a state of depression upon first discovery, and many who wish to become heterosexual, or those who are from a religious family, often go through prolongued periods of depression. The depression isn't biological in origin, but it's still there in many cases.

Maybe I should have related homosexuals more to people with Anxiety Disorders, but the purpose of comparing it to extreme, but similar examples is to emphasis the condition. Why cure one thing, but not the other, just because it's significantly less harmful?

What about people with Red Hair? That's genetic, you only get red hair if your parents or an ancestor has red hair. It's not a mutation like Albinoism. Nothing wrong with being albino, but I'm sure some people, who want to go onto the beach, wish their was a cure. Homosexuals are no different

By stating that homosexuality could be cured, you are saying that it IS a problem when in fact it's just part of this diverse and wonderful world we live in. 'If it's your choice, we can change it.' Yeah, because homosexuals simply wake up one day and pick who they want to love. 'If it's something that's been put onto you, we can change that.' Because they are there in the shadows with sharp teeth, preying on unsuspecting heterosexuals. 

'Does that mean I want to change it? No, I think it's perfectly fine'. How big of you.

Should we cure heterosexuality? After reading through this thread, without a doubt.

'How is wanting a cure for homosexuality any different from wanting a cure for Albinoism'

Jesus H Christ!

Lol. I think you're in the wrong thread.

How is wanting a cure for homosexuality any different from wanting a cure for Albinoism? There is nothing wrong with being Albino, but I'm sure some Albino people want to be able to go out and not burn with any sun exposure.

It's an acceptible condition, one outside the control of the individual, but it's still a condition. Something is still "wrong" with people like this.

At least I see no difference. Seeing something as a disorder (which most scientists still think it is), but accepting it is exactly the mentality people should have.

Just accepting people with disorders without any consideration of those who wish they didn't have it, is selfish IMO

I believe this was a reply to my post about the harsh "corrective measures" people used to deal to people who were left handed.

It raises an interesting question, too. What if sex changes were around at the times before suffrage? Would it have had any influence on the outcome? Would women who wanted equal power to a man just....become men instead?

No arguement here, we don't live in a perfect world.

Now why is my opinion viewed as horrific by many people on VGC? Why are people so bothered by the fact that some people see homosexuality as a condition/disorder, which we should continue to look for a cure for? I mean there are homosexuals who wish to be heterosexuals, there's no arguing here, but are people so pro-gay that they have managed to forget about the gay people who are opressed by being gay?

I feel that many people here don't look beyond the contraversy and are too held up in the politics.

Okay....... I understand where your coming from. Had you presented this arguement to most people here, they would heckle you, as I am being heckled now.

I agree with you, but where do you draw the line? Most Bi-Polar individuals who refuse treatment, probably need it. Van Gough was an exception as his condition was a sacrifice which he made in order to paint such excellent art, however it's not a worthy sacrifice to allow people to even consider remaining bi-polar, even to pursue artistic lifestlyes. More often then no, the sacrifices are not worth the result.

If there were a permanent cure to Bi-Polar, I would still make this one Mandatory (I wouldn't make any homosexual drugs mandatory). I think a world with no bi polars, and a few less paintings is a better one where people have the option to take medication, and we still see tragedies in the few cases where people don't, and can't manage themselves.

This is basically what it comes down to. "Is homosexuality a disorder?" That such a loaded statement that only serves to justify stigma towards gay people. Most mainstream scientific organizations have evolved past calling homosexuality a mental disorder.

@Michael-5

As you have pointed out in his other threads, the decision was politically motivated, but that really doesn't make it wrong. Homosexuality was included in the DSM in the first place because people claimed it constituted as pathological behaviour despite the fact that the science wasn't really there. The studies that were done wer almost all methodolically weak and unreliable, to say the least.

Stop comparing it to schizophrenia, they are nowhere close to the same thing. Instead Fordy was right in comparing it to introversion. Introversion has been proposed to be added in the DSM multiple times, and it should fit your definition rather well: introversion is a disposition that is both statistically uncommon and inherently takes away chances for communication and establishing new (sexual or platonic) relationships. Would you call introversion a disorder?

As per the op, no I do not think homosexuality needs to be cured, nor should it be. Being gay should not have anything to do with pathology. If you really want to help gay people, instead of finding a cure, it is better to fix homophobia and the social stigma surrounding homosexuality, which does harm people. I can tell you from personal experience, thinking about hot guys is good - by definition being gay is about being comfortable with having a relationship with someone of the same sex - but being stigmatised for it sucks, nothing about being gay in itself is harmful (except in the very specific case of procreation, but we have options for that now).