[Lucky Dog]

1) The term, sexual orientation, has no practical relevance to the debate on homosexual behavior. This term (sexual orientation) is an expression based exclusively on “feelings.” To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief. Therefore, one’s “feelings” toward members of either sex are irrelevant to how one rationally chooses to behave with, or toward, another individual.

2) Homosexuality is defined in a practical sense only by behavior. The reason (genetic, childhood abuse, etc.) homosexual practitioners choose to behave as they do is purely an item of idle curiosity unless their behavior requires clinical intervention for modification. If behavior modification requires clinical intervention then the issue of psychosis (as in an irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) is on the table.

3) If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Consequently, like other psychoses, its sufferers should be given curative therapy whenever possible. If these individuals refuse or reject curative therapy and represent a significant danger to themselves and/or serious disruption to public order, they should be humanely confined with other dangerous, mentally ill people until they accept and benefit from curative therapy.

4) Any mentally healthy (in the sense of not having some irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) human being chooses his or her behavior.

5) Therefore, one is a homosexual purely by choosing to be so. Additionally, everyone bears the consequences for their decisions. That behavioral responsibility extends to the impacts, both, to themselves and to others.

Finally, if homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is/should be subject to the same types of societal behavioral regulations/norms/laws as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, pederasty, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, etc.

[r9etb]

The term, sexual orientation, has no practical relevance to the debate on homosexual behavior.

Oh, pooh. That's just silly. Common sense says that you are more likely to act on the urges you do have, than on the urges you don't have.

The root cause of those urges is what's being discussed here. We can agree that homosexuality is an undesirable affliction; but we should at the same time be honest about its characteristics.

[drjulie]

We certainly agree that there is a difference between orientation and behavior. However, I believe that orientation is relevant (i.e., someone is more likely to engage in homosexual activity if he/she is attracted to people of the same sex). If a person wants to be treated for an “orientation”, I have no problem with that, nor does the APA. However, evidence that such treatments work is pretty thin, in my assessment.