>if you want to argue that something you dislike constitutes a
>psychological disorder in the clinical sense, the onus is on you to
>prove your case, not on me to preemptively disprove it. But I'll go
>ahead and suggest that the material needs of previous societies,
>codified into surviving cultural and religious traditions, might
>have something to do with it.
There's no onus on you to prove your "suggestion"?
I think you're putting words in Doug's mouth. He said nothing about making something a disorder in the clinical sense. What authority would he have for that anyway?
He said that when you have frequent examples of anti-gay bigots -- who provide testimony in court or hold positions of power giving them authority to give their bigotry the force of law -- getting caught with their pants down, then that is something to give serious consideration. If you think it's a non-story, tell it to the people in Florida whose lives this guy is helping fuck up.
As far as it being a disorder, there does seem to be at least more evidence for that than there is for the vague suggestion that "material needs of previous societies" somehow shaped attitudes toward homosexuality.