Homosexuality

[Hashime]

The difference between say a population of say a population of Latinos in a predominately white area and being gay is that there is no "downside" to being latino from an individual point of view. There is however a downside to being gay, a negative consequence, an inability to conceive children naturally. This is "ill" or bad, meaning it can be defined as a mental illness.

Okay.. firstly I don't know if you just did not bother to read my post, or perhaps quoted someone elses.. however your response has nothing to do with what I said.

However. Would you call a nun, for instance, a person with a mental illness.. their mental choice to devote their life to God means that they cannot have a child... so in this thinking Nuns are "ill" and "bad" people, yet you are happy to put this onto someone who does not have a choice in the matter? The same certainly applies to Celibates, The Pope, anyone who has no intention to concieve children and anyone that cannot.

Lastly, please, please remember that we ARE still people. Having a label forced upon us, based on general opinion is not only incredibly insulting, but hugely upsetting.

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

 

[zerofan]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

 

[JayDee106]

Yes, learning disabilities are mental illnesses. I bet you have undergone treatment of some kind, learned techniques to help you deal with you disorder?
As for being left handed that is a wiring thing, though a lefty can learn to write with the other hand, it is just hard (from experience).

However having learning disabilities can impair an individual. Just as most "mental illnesses" will impair the individual. Even Phobias, which as I now correctly know are Mental Illnesses, can impair an individual. I cause no offence of course, but the thing is being gay is not impairing anybody. Of course you need "treatment" if it will impair you in everyday life. However being homosexual in no conceivable way will impair me in my life. I may not have a child... and? The world is not short of children, out of anything we can be said to be having to many for the world to sustain them.
So WHY would a gay person need "treating" then? What good could it do for the person?

 

[Hashime]

The difference between say a population of say a population of Latinos in a predominately white area and being gay is that there is no "downside" to being latino from an individual point of view. There is however a downside to being gay, a negative consequence, an inability to conceive children naturally. This is "ill" or bad, meaning it can be defined as a mental illness.

Okay.. firstly I don't know if you just did not bother to read my post, or perhaps quoted someone elses.. however your response has nothing to do with what I said.

However. Would you call a nun, for instance, a person with a mental illness.. their mental choice to devote their life to God means that they cannot have a child... so in this thinking Nuns are "ill" and "bad" people, yet you are happy to put this onto someone who does not have a choice in the matter? The same certainly applies to Celibates, The Pope, anyone who has no intention to concieve children and anyone that cannot.

Lastly, please, please remember that we ARE still people. Having a label forced upon us, based on general opinion is not only incredibly insulting, but hugely upsetting.

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

I do not believe that one "is" gay, I see it as a mental illness or deviation that must be treated or worked out in therapy. )

I was born gay and have been out for about half my life now. I do not wish to change, I do not need to be treated and in all my years in the GLBTQ community, from student organisations onwards, I have not met a person who wants to be "treated". Being gay is as much a part of me as my blue eyes and the colour of my hair.

Happily, your belief is worth about as much as your "research". But then we all know that 97.57889893759735% of statistics are just made up.

Have you ever tried not being gay, I mean really tried? Attempting to understand why your thoughts are different from normal, trying to understand why you are choosing to go against the most basic instinct of continuing your genetic line? It might take time and effort, but If you do not try to change your situation, or understand what is different you cannot really say you are gay, only that the most convenient definition of yourself is gay. If after that your views have not change so be it.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html

Just give it a read

So what you are saying is that because wild animals do it, humans should too? Humans are also monogamous, an issue not covered in the article. A bull might go after anything that it can mount, but it will mount more than one cow. Unless you are mating with a different partner often being gay still poses the same problem. If you also consider the societal need for 2 parents, to cover both the cost and the amount of time it takes to raise a child the arguments of the article become invalid.

Recent physiological studies have demonstrated physically detectable differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Simon LeVay's hypothalamus study (1991) found that the hypothalamus, "a part of the brain that helps regulate sexual behavior, was smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men; it was equivalent to the dimensions seen in heterosexual women" (Angier, 1992).

A second anatomical difference was subsequently discovered by Dr. Laura S. Allen and Dr. Roger A. Gorski of the University of California at Los Angeles. Allen and Gorski found that another brain structure, the anterior commissure, a "cord of nerve fibers that allows two halves of the brain to communicate with one another, is larger in homosexual men than it is in either heterosexual men or in women." LeVay said of he Allen-Gorski studies: "'I think the work is very good, and I think it's correct It's such a clear result, and in a sense it's more important than my own finding" (1992).

New findings support "a neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality" (study by Dr. Gunther Dorner and associates, as reported by Ellis, 1992). Other studies indicate hormonal differences in homosexuals (West, 1977).

Even with the increased number of studies being conducted, the "question of the basic origin of fixed homosexuality remains controversial" (Ellis, 1992). The trend is towards identifying biological factors which may lead to a predisposition for homosexuality, while leaving the door open for environment and experience as determining factors in individual behavior.

SO what I'm trying to say is, where is this a purely higher brain function mental thing?

Notice he says predisposition. Not is caused by, but predisposition. All this says is that gay people may have different structure, not that being gay is purely biology.

 

[zerofan]

Notice he says predisposition. Not is caused by, but predisposition. All this says is that gay people may have different structure, not that being gay is purely biology.

And when did I say it was purely physical? It is both. Different for each person. Some it is purely physical, others it is purely mental. Most is half way in between.

 

[Hashime]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

All of my arguments are from a purely scientific (or attempted to be from) perspective. Arguing with emotion leads to too many mistakes, and an inflexible perspective. In this situation I have chosen the perspective that being gay can be a choice, after reading and personal experience. It is my opinion however and should be taken as such. This is a discussion forum after all. It seems many are personally offended by this, and should again remember they can leave.

 

[Hashime]

Notice he says predisposition. Not is caused by, but predisposition. All this says is that gay people may have different structure, not that being gay is purely biology.

And when did I say it was purely physical? It is both. Different for each person. Some it is purely physical, others it is purely mental. Most is half way in between.

Which means that as it can be considered mental it is therefore flexible, that is able to be worked out in most cases.

 

[vociferocity]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

All of my arguments are from a purely scientific (or attempted to be from) perspective. Arguing with emotion leads to too many mistakes, and an inflexible perspective. In this situation I have chosen the perspective that being gay can be a choice, after reading and personal experience. It is my opinion however and should be taken as such. This is a discussion forum after all. It seems many are personally offended by this, and should again remember they can leave.

look, even if it was a choice, what the hell right do you have to tell people what they can or cannot choose? fuck it, okay. I'll play along: I am gay, I chose to be gay, I do not think that choice means I have a mental illness.

Let's discuss why you think it does.

 

[Hashime]

Yes, learning disabilities are mental illnesses. I bet you have undergone treatment of some kind, learned techniques to help you deal with you disorder?
As for being left handed that is a wiring thing, though a lefty can learn to write with the other hand, it is just hard (from experience).

However having learning disabilities can impair an individual. Just as most "mental illnesses" will impair the individual. Even Phobias, which as I now correctly know are Mental Illnesses, can impair an individual. I cause no offence of course, but the thing is being gay is not impairing anybody. Of course you need "treatment" if it will impair you in everyday life. However being homosexual in no conceivable way will impair me in my life. I may not have a child... and? The world is not short of children, out of anything we can be said to be having to many for the world to sustain them.
So WHY would a gay person need "treating" then? What good could it do for the person?

That is a valid point, why should the person need treating. That is up to the individual, but my point is more that treatment should be viewed as just that, not some inflammatory thing, but getting better. Again the earth does need to shed some population, and I could live with gay couples if they were a. quiet and b. not able to adopt or opt for IVF.

 

[zerofan]

Notice he says predisposition. Not is caused by, but predisposition. All this says is that gay people may have different structure, not that being gay is purely biology.

And when did I say it was purely physical? It is both. Different for each person. Some it is purely physical, others it is purely mental. Most is half way in between.

Which means that as it can be considered mental it is therefore flexible, that is able to be worked out in most cases.

Now you're playing with words. It CAN be a mental illness. Very very rarely. Some troubled kids turn to "being gay" as a way out of their current lives. I wont ignore that. But this is the rarity.

You've not being giving scientific arguments at all, just personal opinions, the only arguments you've been giving were debunked from the norm a long time ago hence my disgust at you calling yourself a scientist.

 

[Hashime]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

All of my arguments are from a purely scientific (or attempted to be from) perspective. Arguing with emotion leads to too many mistakes, and an inflexible perspective. In this situation I have chosen the perspective that being gay can be a choice, after reading and personal experience. It is my opinion however and should be taken as such. This is a discussion forum after all. It seems many are personally offended by this, and should again remember they can leave.

look, even if it was a choice, what the hell right do you have to tell people what they can or cannot choose? fuck it, okay. I'll play along: I am gay, I chose to be gay, I do not think that choice means I have a mental illness.

Let's discuss why you think it does.

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

 

[Hashime]

Notice he says predisposition. Not is caused by, but predisposition. All this says is that gay people may have different structure, not that being gay is purely biology.

And when did I say it was purely physical? It is both. Different for each person. Some it is purely physical, others it is purely mental. Most is half way in between.

Which means that as it can be considered mental it is therefore flexible, that is able to be worked out in most cases.

Now you're playing with words. It CAN be a mental illness. Very very rarely. Some troubled kids turn to "being gay" as a way out of their current lives. I wont ignore that. But this is the rarity.

You've not being giving scientific arguments at all, just personal opinions, the only arguments you've been giving were debunked from the norm a long time ago hence my disgust at you calling yourself a scientist.

From what I have read they have not. I also never called myself a scientist, rather a subscriber to the scientific method, and a loose one at that.

 

[JayDee106]

That is a valid point, why should the person need treating. That is up to the individual, but my point is more that treatment should be viewed as just that, not some inflammatory thing, but getting better. Again the earth does need to shed some population, and I could live with gay couples if they were a. quiet and b. not able to adopt or opt for IVF.

You could live with gay couples if they were these things?

I would just like to say about a. is that we are not all "camp" in your face type gay couples. Obviously I shall stand up for what for me is natural, but I am usually quite reserved, I only discuss homosexuality when the topic arises, and I make no fuss of it. I know, that there are the very camp people, who, of course, get all the attention. HOWEVER just because some of us are "camp", it should not affect you in the slightest, and if it does, I would like to know why?

On the case of adoption, I am mixed. I am still unsure about your points and their validity, but I know that (edit, SOME, not everyone is a natural born great parent) homosexual parents, if the stigma of homosexuality was to go away, could easily make very good parents.

 

[Chewster]

My opinion is a simple one. As I am not homosexual, I am rather indifferent to the extent that their rights are the exact same as mine. When they are not, I tend to be displeased.

You could live with gay couples if they were these things?

I would just like to say about a. is that we are not all "camp" in your face type gay couples. Obviously I shall stand up for what for me is natural, but I am usually quite reserved, I only discuss homosexuality when the topic arises, and I make no fuss of it. I know, that there are the very camp people, who, of course, get all the attention. HOWEVER just because some of us are "camp", it should not affect you in the slightest, and if it does, I would like to know why?

On the case of adoption, I am mixed. I am still unsure about your points and their validity, but I know that homosexual parents, if the stigma of homosexuality was to go away, could easily make very good parents.

To be honest, people who get offended or annoyed by campy, flamboyant gays are childish whiners. It is their way of expressing themselves. Why should flamey gays be any less flamey just because some straight people get their conservative sensibilities offended? It isn't your place to tell people how to act, and to be honest, people who are all like "be gay, but don't be all gay around me" are likely closeted bigots. This whole "camp/in your face gays" is such a fucking useless stereotype, and I rarely even see it. It seems like an automatic straw-man people bring up to disparage gays anyway, so their bigotry can more acceptable.

In conclusion, who cares? If you're whining about campy gays you need to grow the fuck up already.

 

[zerofan]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

All of my arguments are from a purely scientific (or attempted to be from) perspective. Arguing with emotion leads to too many mistakes, and an inflexible perspective. In this situation I have chosen the perspective that being gay can be a choice, after reading and personal experience. It is my opinion however and should be taken as such. This is a discussion forum after all. It seems many are personally offended by this, and should again remember they can leave.

look, even if it was a choice, what the hell right do you have to tell people what they can or cannot choose? fuck it, okay. I'll play along: I am gay, I chose to be gay, I do not think that choice means I have a mental illness.

Let's discuss why you think it does.

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

Yes, that is for SOME people the point you keep missing. What is your point? There are also some advantages would you believe?

Allows you not to contribute to the current overpopulation issue and be avalible to help the poor kids whos parents have "given up".
Makes you popular with other people who are gay
Gives you opportunities which doesn't exist for straight people in some businesses
+others
Now if you think all gays are like it because they want to be, then you're wrong. Some are, you're right, like people who smoke. But that is a minority.

Why are you talking to me when we're trying to talk about homosexuality as a whole? I'm discussing your points and you're claiming I'm gay? You're either using the wrong words or are being a very poor debater (or both)

edit: Why did you say you were doing quantum physics if you don't believe in the scientific method? You're nuts. That isn't just simple physics...

 

[AndyFromMonday]

couples if they were a. quiet and b. not able to adopt or opt for IVF.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest homosexual couples cannot take care of a child the same way heterosexual couples can. To say that "it will turn the child gay" is the reason is absolutely moronic as in todays society, and grab on for something because this will be a shocker, your sexuality does not matter. In the 21st century, on the planet Earth housing at least 7 billion people your sexuality does not matter.

Secondly, I do consider "treatments" to be invasive. You're attempting to force someone to change their identity because you do not consider it "right". This is only a few steps away from saying that listening to music or watching a movie is "detrimental" because it impedes your ultimate goal, reproduction. The more you spend doing something else the less likely you are to fuck and pass on your genes. As such, human being should all be housed in huge buildings in which they will fuck each day and transmit their genes.

You're assigning a goal to the individual, reproduction, but fail to account for something you yourself stated, free will. You stated that homosexuality is a mental illness and then you said it was a choice. This makes absolutely no sense. You're stating that something you cannot choose, mental illness, is a choice, homosexuality.

Hell, whether homosexuality or not is a choice does not matter. We are different individuals with INDIVIDUAL GOALS. The moment you can choose whether or not you want to pass your genes or not is the moment your ultimate goal as a species as ended(reproduction, aka passing on your genes) and your ultimate goal as an individual has started. What is that goal? I don't know. Each human has a different "ultimate" goal and this "ultimate" goal tends to change from time to time.

The fact of the matter remains. We think, we have free will and therefor you cannot think of US the same way you think of a lion.

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

1. I've already explained your first point. I don't think I have to do it again. You're thinking of humans the same way you're thinking of a lion. Remember, even though were animals were DIFFERENT animals.

Still, you can adopt. Last time I checked, an orphan is a lost member of society. Rarely will they have the ability to develop into healthy individuals without the guidance of parents. Adopting is the same thing as bringing another child into the world.

2. So? Atheists also deviate from the norm. Is atheism also a mental illness? Actually, if I remember correctly, scientists were at one time persecuted by the church. Were they mentally ill as well? Is someone with a different idea than that of the norm mentally ill? If so, why?

3. Ditto.

4. You're thinking of this on a population basis. You don't suddenly have a higher risk of contracting HIV if you're homosexual. This depends ENTIRELY on the amount of partners you have. The risk is the same for straight people as it is for homosexual people.

 

[Hashime]

couples if they were a. quiet and b. not able to adopt or opt for IVF.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest homosexual couples cannot take care of a child the same way heterosexual couples can. To say that "it will turn the child gay" is the reason is absolutely moronic as in todays society, and grab on for something because this will be a shocker, your sexuality does not matter. In the 21st century, on the planet Earth housing at least 7 billion people your sexuality does not matter.

Secondly, I do consider "treatments" to be invasive. You're attempting to force someone to change their identity because you do not consider it "right". This is only a few steps away from saying that listening to music or watching a movie is "detrimental" because it impedes your ultimate goal, reproduction. The more you spend doing something else the less likely you are to fuck and pass on your genes. As such, human being should all be housed in huge buildings in which they will fuck each day and transmit their genes.

You're assigning a goal to the individual, reproduction, but fail to account for something you yourself stated, free will. You stated that homosexuality is a mental illness and then you said it was a choice. This makes absolutely no sense. You're stating that something you cannot choose, mental illness, is a choice, homosexuality.

Hell, whether homosexuality or not is a choice does not matter. We are different individuals with INDIVIDUAL GOALS. The moment you can choose whether or not you want to pass your genes or not is the moment your ultimate goal as a species as ended(reproduction, aka passing on your genes) and your ultimate goal as an individual has started. What is that goal? I don't know. Each human has a different "ultimate" goal and this "ultimate" goal tends to change from time to time.

The fact of the matter remains. We think, we have free will and therefor you cannot think of US the same way you think of a lion.

Firstly, I said if it was not a choice, like the context at that time was, then it is a mental illness.
Secondly, believe what ever you want to believe, just don't expect others to value that belief.
Have a nice life.

 

[zerofan]

Meh, I'm going to close this argument since I feel this guy is simply a troll and I'd rather spend this time with my kids.

1) Not all gay people are gay from choice. Some are, some aren't, shocking I know that somethings come about for different reasons depending on the individual.
2) Not all straight people are good parents, like not all gay people would be. Shocking I know that somethings come about for different reasons depending on the individual.
3) Not reproducing isn't the end of the world. In fact, reproducing at the rate humans are is dangerous... being gay has advantages also, they're not all bad. shocking I know that somethings come about for different reasons depending on now society views it.
4) Being gay doesn't always mean being sexually active and "gay" I know quite a few gay people who have lived with their partners for years and years and have never done penetrating sex. So no more dangerous than any "normal" sex life.
5) A lot of your points can be summed up as follows: "Being gay is a bad thing because society will treat you badly therefore it is bad". Well newsflash, society is what we make it so if that is what you base your ideas on, you'll one day realise the "good old days" are changing and forever will change. (Example, Romans thought being gay was fine... so when they "ruled the world" being gay was acceptable... society thought it was acceptable.

I'm bored now.

TLR? STFU

 

[Chewster]

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

Sorry, no. None of those points are derived from logic or science.

1. The planet is overpopulated anyway. Besides of which, the ability to have children or not is not grounds for declaring a mental disorder.

2. And? If you are not a WASP then you are, quite likely, a deviant to the general population of America and most other Western countries. Not grounds for a mental disorder.

3. And? See the above two points. I'm not sure you know what a mental disorder actually is.

4. Anal sex is not gay exclusive, nor is it the only means by which to contract AIDS or other STIs. Moreover, STIs are not gay exclusive. Anyone can get them in any manner of ways. Seriously though, are you a relic of the 80s? Can we please get over the whole "AIDS is a gay disease" mentality, because it is ignorant as fuck. And again, putting yourself at risk for these things is not necessarily grounds for declaring a mental disorder.

5. Such as?

None of these points are derived from any science and the fact that you attempt to portray them as such is disingenuous, as the very best. No reputable mental heath service in the world now classifies being gay as a mental disorder, so you most certainly do not have science on your side.

If you're going to argue here, at least be honest about it.

 

[Hashime]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

All of my arguments are from a purely scientific (or attempted to be from) perspective. Arguing with emotion leads to too many mistakes, and an inflexible perspective. In this situation I have chosen the perspective that being gay can be a choice, after reading and personal experience. It is my opinion however and should be taken as such. This is a discussion forum after all. It seems many are personally offended by this, and should again remember they can leave.

look, even if it was a choice, what the hell right do you have to tell people what they can or cannot choose? fuck it, okay. I'll play along: I am gay, I chose to be gay, I do not think that choice means I have a mental illness.

Let's discuss why you think it does.

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

Yes, that is for SOME people the point you keep missing. What is your point? There are also some advantages would you believe?

Allows you not to contribute to the current overpopulation issue and be avalible to help the poor kids whos parents have "given up".
Makes you popular with other people who are gay
Gives you opportunities which doesn't exist for straight people in some businesses
+others
Now if you think all gays are like it because they want to be, then you're wrong. Some are, you're right, like people who smoke. But that is a minority.

Why are you talking to me when we're trying to talk about homosexuality as a whole? I'm discussing your points and you're claiming I'm gay? You're either using the wrong words or are being a very poor debater (or both)

edit: Why did you say you were doing quantum physics if you don't believe in the scientific method? You're nuts. That isn't just simple physics...

Poor wording, I used the impersonal "you" to refer the the hypothetical speaker.
I said I did believe in the scientific method, just that I was not strictly applying it at this time.
Thirdly Believe what you want to believe, if you have taken anything out of this argument then it was not pointless, otherwise you have wasted your time.