Homosexuality as a disorder
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because of my personal views on communism, I find it abhorrent to twist an argument defending homosexuality from discrimination into one that in any way promotes your political standpoint. It's a trivial argument at best that depends on flimsy comparisons and a fundamental dishonesty of intent. I have never made the statement, nor heard the accusation made, that for one to be a communist they must somehow be mentally defective-- I simply think they are wrong. I have, however, heard the statement that homosexuality is a disorder, so at least we have some common ground in believing that such statements are blatantly false. Please refrain from exploiting the struggle of an actually oppressed minority for your own political purposes.
The thing is homosexuality is a purely social thing, it doesn't cause any problems for a person other than problems caused by society's view. At the moment society fully accepts homosexuality so calling it a disorder using medical terminology is a little bit odd. I get your point though, people should always look past fancy language and stuff and focus on what someone is actually saying.2012 Wont Happen said:
Well you are sinister after all.Joos said:
It was and is considered a disorder by psychoanalists, and IIRC a psychiatrist could still diagnose gender identity disorder if you acted transgender. That doesn't mean any of the 2 professions do or should support discrimination\violence against gays. And after all you can't possibly stop people to do what they want under their bedsheets.
Well don for constructing such a convoluted can confusing post OP.
The definition of a disorder 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.
Seeing as homosexuality does not cause subjective distress or disability and is in fact part of normal development and culture going back centuries I guess the point you're trying to make is that people will try to claim homosexuality is a disorder when it isn't.
The definition of a disorder 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.
Seeing as homosexuality does not cause subjective distress or disability and is in fact part of normal development and culture going back centuries I guess the point you're trying to make is that people will try to claim homosexuality is a disorder when it isn't.
You have an incorrect idea of disorder. A disorder is not just a deviation from the standard, it is a deviation from the perceived function of something. Disorder is, in a sense similar to the idea of a malfunction.
So the analogy with communism doesn't really work here.
I support the idea of homosexuality as a biological malfunction, because there is no evidence that it serves a biological purpose, and in fact hinders the biological function of the human being: procreation.
I'm not saying that homosexuals can't reproduce, I'm just saying that under prehistoric/ancient circumstances they wouldn't have reproduced.
The point to take away from this not whether or not homosexuality is a disorder, but rather that it doesn't make a damn difference. People shouldn't be treated negatively because of anything of which they have no control. In fact, if people came to accept homosexuality as an untreatable sexuality disorder, then maybe they'd finally realize that it isn't a "choice".
So the analogy with communism doesn't really work here.
I support the idea of homosexuality as a biological malfunction, because there is no evidence that it serves a biological purpose, and in fact hinders the biological function of the human being: procreation.
I'm not saying that homosexuals can't reproduce, I'm just saying that under prehistoric/ancient circumstances they wouldn't have reproduced.
The point to take away from this not whether or not homosexuality is a disorder, but rather that it doesn't make a damn difference. People shouldn't be treated negatively because of anything of which they have no control. In fact, if people came to accept homosexuality as an untreatable sexuality disorder, then maybe they'd finally realize that it isn't a "choice".
That's the thing with mental disorders. You can't possibly get any closer to someone's identity than their mind, and by diagnosing someone with a disorder you're telling them that their mind is 'wrong'. Another example would be savants, many of whom, if offered the choice, say would keep their gift and the problems it entails. I think if a 'cure' is available it should be offered but unless they're a threat to others, people have to be left to decide whether they want their entire identity to be altered or not.
Besides, if we were to 'cure' people whether they liked it or not, what would the implications be? If mental 'normality' was enforced whether people wanted it or not, surely other kinds of 'normality' would have to be given the same value, unless there's a valid reason to make the mind a special case. Odd hobbies? You need fixing. Look funny? You need fixing. Too intelligent or not smart enough? You need fixing. View the world differently; miss thing others don't but see hidden details of your own? Fixety fix.
Besides, if we were to 'cure' people whether they liked it or not, what would the implications be? If mental 'normality' was enforced whether people wanted it or not, surely other kinds of 'normality' would have to be given the same value, unless there's a valid reason to make the mind a special case. Odd hobbies? You need fixing. Look funny? You need fixing. Too intelligent or not smart enough? You need fixing. View the world differently; miss thing others don't but see hidden details of your own? Fixety fix.
I must say I like the way that your point is sorta proved throughout the thread...
It was a point I myself was very aware of because... well because I know something about politics. Pretty much all of it is just arguing semantics and basing your points off of misreadings.
It was a point I myself was very aware of because... well because I know something about politics. Pretty much all of it is just arguing semantics and basing your points off of misreadings.
Ahhhaahhh!Batou667 said:
I was hoping someone else would see this! It is a genuine fear of mine that one day paedophilia will have people campaigning for it.
Obviously there are major differences between homosexuality and paedophilia; namely the fact that gays are both consenting adults and paedophilia is rape.
Sooooo here's hoping that open mindedness doesn't go too far. Remember 'If you open your mind to much, your brain will fall out'.
The definition of disorder you used is one i've never heard of before. The one i'm aware of, is this one:
"a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction"
I've never seen disorder used as a term to mean "Different from everyone else". I looked at the site you suggested, the definitions it gives are these:
1: to disturb the order of
2: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
I know this is a thread about the misuse of language. But I think the only person who's skewed the language is you.
"a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction"
I've never seen disorder used as a term to mean "Different from everyone else". I looked at the site you suggested, the definitions it gives are these:
1: to disturb the order of
2: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
I know this is a thread about the misuse of language. But I think the only person who's skewed the language is you.
Most of you here are looking from wrong perspective "And who decided what is normal?!"
Reproduction is normal / needed for survival function of human.
Reproduction is possible with 2 different sex partners, thus being attracted to opposite sex is normal / needed for survival.
Sex with same sex partner serves no purpose except "pleasure" which is ok (bisexuals, yes it exists in nature between animals other than human).
Being homosexual is even illogical. It serves no purpose, it goes against nature. So that it is disorder. You don't need nature any more? Cloning? Medical impregnation? That's a "nice" future you want to live in...
No don't get me wrong - population is too big, I need wife and the more gay men there is the better chances of me getting good wife is (as long as gay people stay away with their "sex life" , requests to change laws because they don't like them, parades, and idiotic "lets defend gay people threads" )
TL;DR
Stop with "let's defend gay people because I am gay and I feel insecure" threads. It's more annoying than Consoles VS PC.
Reproduction is normal / needed for survival function of human.
Reproduction is possible with 2 different sex partners, thus being attracted to opposite sex is normal / needed for survival.
Sex with same sex partner serves no purpose except "pleasure" which is ok (bisexuals, yes it exists in nature between animals other than human).
Being homosexual is even illogical. It serves no purpose, it goes against nature. So that it is disorder. You don't need nature any more? Cloning? Medical impregnation? That's a "nice" future you want to live in...
No don't get me wrong - population is too big, I need wife and the more gay men there is the better chances of me getting good wife is (as long as gay people stay away with their "sex life" , requests to change laws because they don't like them, parades, and idiotic "lets defend gay people threads" )
TL;DR
Stop with "let's defend gay people because I am gay and I feel insecure" threads. It's more annoying than Consoles VS PC.
The thing is a disorder with this definition isn't a bad thing. You would have to add "disruptive", "dangerous", or "harmful" in front of disorder in order for it to be what people think of as a disorder. It is for that reason that I don't find this very threatening, because it can easily be shot down if someone dares try using this particular definition to call anything a disorder.2012 Wont Happen said:
You're right, homosexual sex has no hope of producing babies, so from the viewpoint of the survival of the species, it's at best pointless and at worst a danger.Arkaniack said:
A similar line of reasoning is sometimes used to condemn paedophilia. "S/he's not even able to reproduce yet, what the hell are you thinking of, you sickos!"
Mind you... does that mean that having heterosexual sex with somebody who has been sterilised or is no longer capable of conceiving is also a deviant (or even immoral) practice? Should I report my grandfather to the police because he still has sex with my grandmother, who is post-menopause?
Batou667 said:
This argument was used to defend transsexuals...
I should rephrase all my post to deal with it but I am to lazy for that.
You cold use:
"Sex with same sex partner serves no purpose except "pleasure" which is ok (bisexuals, yes it exists in nature between animals other than human)."
sex for pleasure is ok so Sex due to normal attraction to opposite sex without idea to reproduce is ok too.
And stop nitpicking. You got the idea of what I wrote. And you know that "Should I report my grandfather to the police because he still has sex with my grandmother, who is post-menopause?" is stupid.
EDIT: Wow, my earlier post actually showed up. What an odd coincidence. Please ignore this, I thought this post was lost to humanity forever, so please read directly below you for my official post.
The dictionary is meant to be a guide, not an absolute catalog of every definition ever.
Essentially, the dictionary provides facts. Whether homosexuality is a "disorder" is clearly opinion-based, since "disorder" is such a broad term anything can fall under it's definition.
For example, if you put the word "disorder" down on paper, a dictionary is there to tell you what the word means. Therefore, if I HAVE NO IDEA what that word means, I have a handy reference guide to tell me WHAT in fact "disorder" means(duh right?). Now whether homosexuality is a disorder is purely speculative, subjective and opinionated subject. Something covered in case papers and psychological research.
What I'm saying is, go find a scientific definition, not a reference guide designed to be passed down from decade to decade to century to century so that a 12-year old can study up on what words he has to study for his next spelling test. And of course provide the eternal basis for what we put down on paper every day.
Essentially, the dictionary provides facts. Whether homosexuality is a "disorder" is clearly opinion-based, since "disorder" is such a broad term anything can fall under it's definition.
For example, if you put the word "disorder" down on paper, a dictionary is there to tell you what the word means. Therefore, if I HAVE NO IDEA what that word means, I have a handy reference guide to tell me WHAT in fact "disorder" means(duh right?). Now whether homosexuality is a disorder is purely speculative, subjective and opinionated subject. Something covered in case papers and psychological research.
What I'm saying is, go find a scientific definition, not a reference guide designed to be passed down from decade to decade to century to century so that a 12-year old can study up on what words he has to study for his next spelling test. And of course provide the eternal basis for what we put down on paper every day.