Homosexuality as a disorder

[2012 Wont Happen]

> Makes an inflammatory / misleading / sensationalist thread title.

> "Y U DIDN"T RED POSTZ?!!"

Surely you remember back when we joined this site people would read what somebody posted before commenting on it?

If not, I'm sorry. It was a much better site then.

 

[drisky]

So all you are proposing is that the dictionary definition of disorder is too vague, and thats not really a big deal. Im sure the medical definition is more defined.

From wikipedia: A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture.

There is no internalized distress or disability, there is some form society but that doesn't count.

You are putting way to much importance on the dictionary, and thats about all there is to it.

I am highlighting how the language can be manipulated to... you know what, never mind. The culture of this site now is very different from the culture of this site when I joined. People then would've probably got what I meant, but this just isn't working.

I read everything you said, I know it can be manipulated, but it doesn't. I'm not sure if you ever heard any one actually use the dictionary to gay bash, but I haven't. And I'm sure the dictionary is filled with over simplifications. Thats my point. I know exactly what you said, I simply disagree that it is a concern because iv'e never heard it as a concern until I heard you brought it up. No one would take someone who used the dictionary like that seriously, so there is no point. So quit saying I'm miss reading your point. I get what your saying, I just disagree. Also I've been here longer then you, I can't have come in ruined the community for you.

 

[Dags90]

It might have glaring flaws to somebody like you who is educated, but ask yourself "Would most people see these flaws?"

If your answer is yes, then you have a higher opinion of the majority of the population than I do. If I am correct, and most could not (I had to look back really close to see them after you pointed them out), then such an argument could be used to manipulate the masses, which is what this is all about.

Yes. Mostly because I think most people would look up the definition of normal before average. Either because it's more interesting to think about normality, or simply because it's the first word given (never underestimate laziness). After that, homosexuality would be precluded as a disorder for people who know enough that homosexuality is caused naturally, as per the first applicable definition of normal in the Merriam Webster. This assuming we're starting from a position of ignorance. A person who believed that homosexuality was a choice could come to validate their opinion via the Merriam Webster definitions.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

So all you are proposing is that the dictionary definition of disorder is too vague, and thats not really a big deal. Im sure the medical definition is more defined.

From wikipedia: A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture.

There is no internalized distress or disability, there is some form society but that doesn't count.

You are putting way to much importance on the dictionary, and thats about all there is to it.

I am highlighting how the language can be manipulated to... you know what, never mind. The culture of this site now is very different from the culture of this site when I joined. People then would've probably got what I meant, but this just isn't working.

I read everything you said, I know it can be manipulated, but it doesn't. I'm not sure if you ever heard any one actually use the dictionary to gay bash, but I haven't. And I'm sure the dictionary is filled with over simplifications. Thats my point. I know exactly what you said, I simply disagree that it is a concern because iv'e never heard it as a concern until I heard you brought it up. No one would take someone who used the dictionary like that seriously, so there is no point. So quit saying I'm miss reading your point. I get what your saying, I just disagree. Also I've been here longer then you, I can't have come in ruined the community for you.

I'm not saying you specifically ruined it. As late as mid 2010 the whole tone of conversation would have been different.

And the language does get manipulated. This specific argument isn't used a lot, but the language is manipulated all the time.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

You could argue that any human behaviour could be described as a disorder, using currently available jargon.

Try to guess the "disorder" Im describing here -

Congenital onset.
Temporary dwarfism.
Impairment of linguistic and motor capabilities.
Incontinence/lack of bowel control.
Mood swings.
Decreased immune response.
Temporary blindness.
Lack of object permanance awareness.

You are describing infancy, yes?

 

[Silvianoshei]

After that, homosexuality would be precluded as a disorder for people who know enough that homosexuality is caused naturally, as per the first applicable definition of normal in the Merriam Webster. This assuming we're starting from a position of ignorance. A person who believed that homosexuality was a choice could come to validate their opinion via the Merriam Webster definitions.

Ok, I KNOW this is not the point of the argument, but I have to correct you here. We don't KNOW whether homosexuality is nature or nurture. There are no definitive studies in favor of either.

There isn't really room for "belief" in this sort of thing. It's like saying that you heard a gay guy proclaim "It's my choice who I sleep with" and came to the conclusion that it's purely choice. I think it's much more complicated than a simple dichotomy of Choice vs. Nature.

Not your point, I know.

 

[Giftfromme]

OP should read the book the Red Queen. It has an entire section dedicated to homosexuality. It's been found in animals off course, but it was postulated that homosexuality developed/came about for the males who could not get females, but instead of simply being outcast from the tribe, they could take care of their family, such as nieces etc

 

[Furioso]

This entire thread is in and of itself a lesson on why sensational headlines should be done away with, they get lots of views but few people actually take the time to read and/or learn from them, good job OP, and shame on those of you who try to make an intellectual argument without actually reading the OP

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

So, is homosexuality a disorder? No. Is being a Communist a mental disorder? No. Is being a Fascist or a Libertarian or any of those other unpopular states of being I disagree with a disorder? No.

This is the only part I have a problem with. You're semi-comparing a sexual preference to a political affiliation, something that can't be changed to something that can be changed on a whim.


Also, for Homosexuality to have ever been considered a "disorder", that means Heterosexuality would have to be have been considered a disorder. You can't use a coin with only once side, so if one is a disorder then the other is automatically. But since the majority of any country is hetero, they don't like to talk about that little fact.

Having cake =/= Eating it.

Actually, homosexuality being considered a disorder would imply heterosexuality would be considered the norm.

By your logic, we would have to consider not being depressed a disorder because we consider being depressed a disorder.

 

[walrusaurus]

Good thing that argument is not what the thread is about and I have clear indication at the start of the thread it is not what it is about...

As a matter of fact it is.

So, is homosexuality a disorder? No. Is being a Communist a mental disorder? No. Is being a Fascist or a Libertarian or any of those other unpopular states of being I disagree with a disorder? No.

However, they might be, if you trust Merriam-Webster or any other dictionary.

I suppose the point of all this is then, be careful out there, and don't let even the most beautiful wording and manipulation of fact persuade you to bigotry.

You've taken a set of definitions and attempted to apply them to a real world example in such a way that points out an essential flaw in those definitions. I was challenging the premises of your argument. If you intended this thread to simply be a series of replies praising your reaching some deep insight, without any critical thought; then i fail to see how it holds any value.

 

[beniki]

This is not a discussion of homosexuality or of the word disorder by itself. It is a discussion of the way in which the language can be manipulated for control.

Ironically you use the same tactics to attract people to your thread. A title like "Language causes bigotry" wouldn't get as much response as the one you put on here. And you do take kind of an inflammatory path to saying 'propaganda is bad, mmm'kay'.

I really do doubt that only 3.5% of your country is gay.

What I suspect is that only 3.5% are comfortable admitting it.

Is that really such a low number? Seems about right to me. Well, to be honest 10% or so would probably be more like it. But I think higher than that would start affecting birth rates.

*Humble Scientist Pose*

There's no such thing as a humble scientist!

 

[Dags90]

Ok, I KNOW this is not the point of the argument, but I have to correct you here. We don't KNOW whether homosexuality is nature or nurture. There are no definitive studies in favor of either.

There isn't really room for "belief" in this sort of thing. It's like saying that you heard a gay guy proclaim "It's my choice who I sleep with" and came to the conclusion that it's purely choice. I think it's much more complicated than a simple dichotomy of Choice vs. Nature.

Not your point, I know.

You're using a definition of "nature" which, while used in the dictionary given as the basis for definitions in the OP, isn't the first one. I'm operating on the assumption of laziness. The first definition of nature is simply, "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence". It doesn't say whether or not a person was raised in a way that made them gay, or genetics, just that it's something which is inherent to their character.


As an off-topic note, there never will studies which are by themselves definitive. That's not how science works. There will be multiple studies supporting it. There are also increasingly more studies pointing towards genetic and epigenetic factors.

 

[drisky]

So, is homosexuality a disorder? No. Is being a Communist a mental disorder? No. Is being a Fascist or a Libertarian or any of those other unpopular states of being I disagree with a disorder? No.

This is the only part I have a problem with. You're semi-comparing a sexual preference to a political affiliation, something that can't be changed to something that can be changed on a whim.


Also, for Homosexuality to have ever been considered a "disorder", that means Heterosexuality would have to be have been considered a disorder. You can't use a coin with only once side, so if one is a disorder then the other is automatically. But since the majority of any country is hetero, they don't like to talk about that little fact.

Having cake =/= Eating it.

Since when does the opposite of a disorder always equal disorder? There are plenty of disorders without opposites.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

snip.

What is the discussion value in this topic? What do you want us to talk about?
You didn't ask a question or request input of any kind, you just made a very obvious statement in an unnecessarily roundabout way designed to get attention. You also gave it a misleading title so you could feel superior to people who ignored your unnecessary wall of text.

Also, while I'm sure you're trying your best to affect a proper formal writing style, you aren't quite there yet. I suggest you either stick with more casual language or expose yourself to more academic writing, although I applaud you for making the effort.

Additionally, Orwell is a bit too trite for my tastes. I think most people have stopped being inordinately impressed by him by their second year at university.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

"Average" is a human concept that has little bearing on reality, and the dictionary is not the ultimate authority- medical science has an entirely different definition of disorder.

eh, I always thought that they stopped calling homosexuality a disorder because of political pressure not science.

 

[brendonnelly]

To be honest, I believe egalitarianism is a better goal for the world than Communism.

 

[Scuzzymcfi]

Green eyes. Arguably the most beautiful of all eye colors and quite rare.

Why thank you.

OT: At this point, with the warning that sadly had to come at the beginning of the OP, anybody that actually thinks this thread is about homosexuality ought to be reprimanded in some fashion. Nothing too extreme, but perhaps a sting that will make them read more carefully and completely in the future.

Now, moving on to the actual argument. Very well made point, Original-Poster. As a debater, I have to deal with words all the time, and though I love language I've witnessed all too often how sloppy wording can ruin a point. Let me give you a recent example:

In the U.S. this year's resolution, or 'topic',(what every high-school debater will talk about for the year's season,) is that "the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of Space beyond the Earth's mesosphere." For instance, one of my partner and I's plans is that the United States should put solar power gathering satellites into Geosynchronous orbit above the mesosphere (one layer of the Earth's atmosphere,) for various reasons.

Now, it's important to remember that in a debate round, everything is spoken aloud- so capitalization of words doesn't matter. In this example, the important words are "Space" and "Earth". The example is a case brought up against my partner and I at a varsity level tournament;

The case was that the United States Federal Government should substantial increase its exploration and or development of Space beyond the Earth's mesosphere by breaking off a large piece of Antarctica, floating it into U.S. waters, and colonizing it. How, you ask, does that pertain at all to colonizing Space? They explained;

They defined "Earth" as what's on the ground, i.e. "earth"- lowercase.

They defined "Space" as the 3-Dimensional area in which everything takes place, i.e. "space"-lowercase.

And it turns out that there's a second "mesosphere" beneath the earth's surface, just outside the core of the earth.

Essentially, they used different definitions to say that the topic about about exploring/developing any space anywhere outside of the Earth's core. And though we managed to beat them on topicality (saying that their plan does not pertain to the topic,) no doubt other teams less skilled than my partner and I in debate theory lost to their insane case.

The Original-Poster's comment is an important point for every language-speaking individual to consider, as it has been in history, but even more important in the approaching intellectual and critical-thinking enlightenment that I, personally, hope comes soon to deliver humanity from our current state of in-education and religious/non-religious bigotry.

TLR (for the lazy): The OP made a good point in a good way, if you don't have the capacity to understand that it is not the fault of the OP's.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

So, is homosexuality a disorder? No. Is being a Communist a mental disorder? No. Is being a Fascist or a Libertarian or any of those other unpopular states of being I disagree with a disorder? No.

This is the only part I have a problem with. You're semi-comparing a sexual preference to a political affiliation, something that can't be changed to something that can be changed on a whim.


Also, for Homosexuality to have ever been considered a "disorder", that means Heterosexuality would have to be have been considered a disorder. You can't use a coin with only once side, so if one is a disorder then the other is automatically. But since the majority of any country is hetero, they don't like to talk about that little fact.

Having cake =/= Eating it.

You know what you typed doesn't make sense, right? I have ADD (not ADHD because I'm impulsive not hyperactive)which I acknowledge is a disorder, but by your logic everybody else has a disorder because they can focus and not act out impulsively, which is complete bullsh*t. I AM the one with the disorder (ADD) not everybody else.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

The word could only be used to describe communism to the medically illiterate. Deviating from the norm is a pretty terrible definition of disorder.
I'd be much more concerned about the common use of communism, meaning totalitarian socialism, and Marxist communism, meaning a stateless egalitarian society, being conflated in the public view if I were you.

 

[AquaAscension]

*Snip'd*

From y'alls responses, I take it neither of you actually finished reading the OP either.

I have no idea why I still come to this site. I try to make an interesting point via giving a very startling example and nobody reads long enough to fucking get it.

Problem is that if your original point (the definition of something) has been changed, then your point is moot. We can no longer argue it because our definitions differ, which is what this entire argument boils down to anyway. What does the definition of something mean? That's an interesting question, but that's not the question that's promised by virtue of the title of this thread.

Why? There are pieces missing. Your argument implies that "average" and "ordinary" are functions of majority rules. In that case, "average" etc. is just as slippery a concept as "disorder." The majority is likely more influenced by current culture than it is by anything else. Culture justifies itself. It is very rarely introspective...

I think what I'm saying is that you didn't deconstruct the argument sufficiently. There was a boilerplate definition of "average" but it didn't go further than that top level of analysis. And what's worse is you immediately jumped down the throats of people bringing up legitimate questions. Their posts may have been short, but just because they didn't use jargon like you doesn't make the posts any less important. Plus, you basically pat yourself on the back with the quoted claim: "I... make an interesting point via [why via? the preposition "by" is more idiomatically correct here] giving a very startling example..." The claims you made that I'm disputing are in bold.

I found those points neither interesting nor startling. I already know that language misrepresents things. This is not interesting to me. The example you used, the title of the thread, is misleading. In a way, when you think about it, this post in and of itself is wielding language non-felicitously by claiming to talk about one thing (homosexuality as a disorder) then quickly veering off into claiming that language can be used to misrepresent things. Perhaps you didn't mean this post this way, but it is horribly ironic.