[Clint N. Suhks]

So, nothing peer-reviewed, just the ramblings of a bunch of political action committees.

That’s the common sense part Josh, you don’t need a PHD to read DATA objectively.

Speaking of politics, what member of the APA can give a negative opinion of homosexuals and not be a victim serious reprisal? The answer is NONE! The APA is it’s own political action committee.

[RightWingNut]

Did I misunderstand something ? this piece of human trash taught "religion"?

RELIGION ????!!!!!

I bet he always looked forward to singing " All Come All Ye Faithful"

[rebel85]

The APA no longer classifies homosexuality as a deformity, illness, or otherwise..only part of a normal behavior. How can they now speak out against it. They have now totally explained it away. It is no longer a problem.

[JoshGray]

However acting on those attractions is another matter. Coveting and conduct are two different things.

You said: If you no longer have same-sex attraction ... you no longer are homosexual. It’s pretty simple.

But if you do have the attraction, you are therefore still homosexual. It's pretty simple. (Just turning your own words around.)

The question is: what percentage of the population has those attractions? What percentage act on it? You do admit they're different things. If it's so "common", you should have some idea the difference between "I am a football player" and "I play football on weekends."

The APA is it’s own political action committee.

That's not the issue. The issue is your incorrect use of data.