Scott Badger wrote:
>
> Fireeye978@aol.com wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 98-07-10 14:12:15 EDT, you write:
> >
> ><< I'm concerned about who decides the sick from the healthy, for
> instance
> > Trent Lot considers homosexuals "sick" but a many people do not share his
> > views, but Mr. Lot is in a position of some power and he can influence
> > the content of laws to enforce his view of illness or at least stop bills
>
> Who decides? Well, Psychologists and Psychiatrists do and summarize the
> findings of their empirical research analysis in the Diagnostic and
> Statistical Manual Version IV. Granted, when the DSM-III first came out
> (late 80's?) homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder, but
> that error has been corrected.
Strictly speaking homosexuality *is* of course a mental/genetic disorder/abnormality (it's a glitch that prevents reproduction). The important point is, however, whether it is a "bad" disorder, being harmful to the carrier and/or society. The answer to that is, generally speaking, "no". In fact it seems that many homosexuals are even more productive/creative than the average straight person. Hyperintelligence is for example also a "disorder", but certainly not something that should be "treated". The urge to rape on the other hand is a good example of something that *should* be treated if possible (which doesn't mean that convicted rapists should just be treated and sent home, that wouldn't be fair towards the victim(s)). The best solution is probably to give everybody the chance to get a free/cheap treatment, and those that refuse will be held fully accountable for their actions (no more "insanity plea").