"I am at a total loss for words. I don't think I have ever seen such an idiotic post."

It made perfect sense to me.

Some want to respond to labels (real or percived) by simply turing around and slapping labels on others. I've seen some who just automatically regurgitate "the anti-gay and hatred community" toward anybody who doesn't agree 110 percent with what they say.

This reactionary stupidity from BOTH sides of the issue needs to stop, IMHO.

I agree that blind labelling does not do any good. I could probably give a couple examples of posters (not on this board) who do that.

But regardless, I saw a few things wrong.

1) Homophobia is not JUST fear of homosexuals. People get too used to seeing the suffix '-phobia' being used to describe "fear". They fail to realize that it has a SECONDARY definition of irrational aversion to. Like "xenophobia".

2) Quite frankly, the issue of labelling "homophobia" as a "mental disorder" has some ironic hypothetical appeal to it, but at the same time is a double-edged sword. Throughout history, gays have been labelled as "mentally ill", and now to see "homophobia" as potentially so?
But regardless, it also opens up a can of worms. If John sees gay Mark and beats him up because of his "homophobia", does that mean he can use mental illness as a defense?
This has already been tried under the label "gay panic defense" and rightfully shot down.

3) The question of how we determine what is "rational" is a funny argument in the big picture of things.
Some aspects of the right frequently rail against the idea of "subjective morality", and here we see an argument for what really boils down to "subjective rationality"?
Quite frankly, rationality can be measured in the capability of one to cogently, coherently, and lucidly explain one's position. There often reaches a point where there is an agreement to disagree, but at least there is some rational basis for the position.

And in the end, the "what is rational?" question is a funny one because it just begs for somebody to defend arguments like "if gays can marry, I can marry a hamster" as "rational".
Can we agree that's not rational?

But psychiatrists already know how to treat disorders where people believe things that aren’t true, raising the question of whether a new classification of mental illness is needed at all.
I'm not so sure that this is a good thing. 45 years ago, Homosexuality was considered a 'major disorder'. /frankly, people do choose what they want to do with their lives.

Oh, my now we must medicate anybody who disagrees with the majority view, Baloney! get over it! Some people believe in thier convictions and are not 'mental' ! And who the heck, says you can't disagree with popular opinion?

The article was talking mainly about people whose homophobia is so pronounced that it interfers with their ability to function.

That is the very definition of a mental illness.

Oh please explain this BS Gary

It looks like everybody in this forum has a problem with functioning normally.

You "could" argue that, but then you'd have to define what "ability to function" that homosexuality "interferes" with...

I can have sex with a woman just like a straight man does.

I wonder if I can ask for time off from work on the basis of "not functioning properly today."