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.

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!

The only reason a homosexual would be unhappy with his/her sexuality is because of pressure from society. Even entertaining the idea that some homosexuals may be unhappy being that way is homophobic. Don't you understand that? It's homophobia that needs to be dealt with, not homosexuality. The result of the poll shows quite clearly how narrow minded and uneducated people are on the matter of sexual orientation and love.

Don't you think that what should be cured isn't the actual sexual orientation but the negative perception people have of homosexuality?

Imagine a vaccine that would make all those unhappy homosexuals accept who they are instead of changing who they are.

That's the best option if you really want to be proactive.

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).

The difference is (in your albinoism example earlier), that Albinos would probably choose based on medical conditions. If an albino chose to become "normal" because he was being outcast by society, then I see that as society's fault. Same with homosexuality. Unfortuntely, the majority of homosexuals who want to be hetero do it because of outside influence, or opression from society, since there really is little to no medical reason to change from becoming homosexual. It's generally a push from society into forcing people into a narrow view, and that only has a negative impact on diversity. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my suffrage example, since we are in similar times with homosexuality. If there were something to turn women into men at the times when suffrage was being debated, would it have affected the rights of women? The difference is, something would be enacted to keep women as women (because no women = no new generation), but I wouldn't see anything smiliar occuring if homosexuals gave up their fight for equal power and became heterosexual.

Unfortunately you cannot draw a line in this situation. Forcibly administering treatment goes against personal liberties, but if the individual is a danger to those around them, it is negligent to let said person make the first move and possibly murder somebody before treatment is administered. then there's other possibilities such as lifestyle changes that could help control conditions. I wouldn't go as far as making any treatment mandatory, but something would need to be devised on when treatment should be administered against individual consent (and not be abused, like giving a legitimate reason to administer treatment for homosexuality).

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).