And I'm not going to mince words...I believe that, just like alcoholism, it runs the gamut between "Gay no matter what" and "Not gay until ya' get some man-love."

But again, EVEN if I were to accept your premise, that doesn't disqualify it from being a disease IF it's deemed detrimental.

All true, and it's that last bit that's of most import. Subjective definition, not scientific fact.

I'm going to state my bias that alcoholism is a disease that an alcoholic can be given a reprieve from thru various forms of treatment. I will never believe, nor aligh myself, with the religious that believe that being gay can be cured. Being gay is a natural part of who a person is. Being an alcoholic is a mutation of who a person was.

Hmm. If they ever manage to conclusively prove that being gay is genetic, than we most certainly CAN "cure" it. SHOULD is a different question, one you obviously know my response to. But for that very reason, that identifying a genetic cause would define a path to a "cure", the "disease" context is one I would prefer to be kept far away from the debate. Way too much danger of the bigots dancing for joy at the discovery of the "cure".

I've already stated that I *see* your point of view that anything can be called a disease if society deems it detrimental.

The point that I was debating here was sexuality as a predisposition. And we disagree.

Which is why I hate hate hate the argument that being gay is genetic. Especially since there is no basis for it.

One other thought about alcoholism vs homosexuality. Alcoholism is a progressive disease that gets worse, never better. There is no cure, only a daily reprieve. Being gay is not a progressive that leads to self-distructive behaviour and severe illness and death.

(And, anyone, regardless of their sexual preference can use that preference for self distructive behaviour. I was not opening that door. That is not really something that is unique to homosexuals.)

Yes, I agree-- that's why I used "sexual" and not "homosexual" in the post above yours.

But I have to say that everything's really rather genetic. And once we learn to manipulate genetics, there are a lot of 'diseases' that we could 'cure.' Skin pigment. Nose size. And so on. That's why, other than healing actual medical conditions (cancer, MS, etc) I think the idea of 'healing' anything genetically is rather inadvisable.

You guys are hilarious. WHy this argument about what it is to be gay between lots of people that are ok with being gay? My original point was that to the extremely religious, acting alcoholic is a sin and acting gay is a sin. End of story.

Traci, you are right, but I find these discussions - as I find many discussions here - to be enlightening. Even if they do completely derail a thread on a different topic. ;)

I agree. I've known many alcoholics and NA has it right one.

The part about the self destructive behaviour and all, the thought that both can be {being gay and being an alcoholic}. Well, I think a person who is self destructive and gay is such because society has made them ashamed of who they are and they can not deal with the pain brought upon them.

Accepting an alcoholic will only lead their their demise and normally the destruction of a familys foundation.

Totally my opinion but also totally from experience as well.

I don't think people fully understand either issue. And, I have to say, I don't completely either.