[supercat]

Sexual arousal is a measurable physiological phenomenon. If one person is aroused by imagery of opposite-sex individuals, while another is aroused only by imagery of the same-sex individuals, I would think that to be a distinction worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their arousal.

Extreme anger or extreme fear are both measurable physiological phenomenon. Do you, similarly, think that these are distinctions worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their “feelings?”

In some cases, yes. If a person suffers from a particular phobia, for example, it may be useful to recognize it even if (perhaps for reasons outside the person's control) it does not particularly affect their actions.

Another abuse of the English language. While I find the term “sexual orientation” objectionable, it is far less so than “gay.” How one “feels” is irrelevant absent an action or psychosis.

I agree that the use of the term "gay" to refer to two different phenomena in an effort to equate them them is an abuse of the English language. Trying to pretend that one of the phenomena doesn't exist, however, won't clarify the issue.

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

There are people who find their attraction to others of the same sex to be a problem which they manage to solve. So for such people I would guess that would seem to meet your definition.

Here again, though, liberals play games with definitions. Homosexual orientation is a psychosis when gays find it convenient to regard it as such (anti-discrimination laws and such), but not when such classification would imply that some effort should be made to "cure it".

[Lucky Dog]

Extreme anger or extreme fear are both measurable physiological phenomenon. Do you, similarly, think that these are distinctions worth noting regardless of whether or how the individuals in question act upon their “feelings?”

In some cases, yes. If a person suffers from a particular phobia, for example, it may be useful to recognize it even if (perhaps for reasons outside the person's control) it does not particularly affect their actions. [emphasis added]

A particular individual or a psychologist may be interested in resolving the sufferer’s phobias, or other conditions, etc. However, as an outside observer (and society would similarly qualify), I do not think that the sufferers of these conditions are entitled to present their conditions to school children or that the sufferers are entitled to any rights beyond those accorded to other citizens because they possess such a condition.

As I noted before, if the sufferers of these conditions do not engage in any detrimental activities as a result of their conditions, who cares (beyond that particular individual and his or her psychologist)?

Another abuse of the English language. [use the word “gay” to describe those with homosexual tendencies] While I find the term “sexual orientation” objectionable, it is far less so than “gay.” How one “feels” is irrelevant absent an action or psychosis.

I agree that the use of the term "gay" to refer to two different phenomena in an effort to equate them them is an abuse of the English language. Trying to pretend that one of the phenomena doesn't exist, however, won't clarify the issue.

Nobody is trying to pretend that a phenomenon doesn’t exist. My point remains that as long as any phenomenon precipitates no adverse action on the part of its possessor, then that phenomenon is irrelevant to anyone but its possessor.

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

There are people who find their attraction to others of the same sex to be a problem which they manage to solve. So for such people I would guess that would seem to meet your definition.

You have correctly identified the paradox that homosexual practitioners are trying to turn into scam. Additionally, those who refuse to logically think the situation through are helping perpetrate this scam on the American public.

By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. If you maintain that homosexual practitioners and those so oriented are suffering from a psychosis, then you must maintain that the APA should reverse their position and reclassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Your position must also be that the APA make homosexuality properly the subject of psychological treatment and cure. Additionally, you must also stand against those militant homosexual practitioners, and those so oriented, who have demanded special rights, beyond those rights for the handicapped, for a mental disease. Furthermore, you must support the right of those former sufferers to have access to the same forum for the purpose of counter argument that homosexual practitioners are granted.