Homosexuality as a disorder

[ShindoL Shill]

hmm...
i think i've got what the OP is getting at.
correct me if i'm wrong OP:

snippage

what you're saying here is that the dictionary definition has the possibility to be used by someone, say an anti-gay marrige senator, to argue to the people why his belief is logically valid, even though that isnt the point of the definition or a good thing.
the OP brings up 1984, where language changes, and it can be used against people, and our language can be used similarly even though we don't want it to be.
did i do good?

 

[Thaius]

There's one huge difference, though; communism is not a physical condition. It's a way of thinking. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with physical traits or mental tendencies one is born with and can't control; a communist looked at the facts, listened to the arguments and chose to be a community. If we're going to try and justify homosexuality by saying it's a genetic trait one is born with and can't be expected to resist, then it is inherently a completely different issue.

That said, I honestly think the whole "gay gene" thing is nothing more than an attempt to justify homosexuality and has little to no actual scientific backing, but if we're going to go with it as a society then this needs to be considered. I'm pretty sure that a mental state of being that promotes behavior contrary to any species' most vital instinct (reproduction) should be considered a disorder. On the other hand, we would have to face the possibility that homosexuality is a tendency that one chooses to follow rather than an uncontrollable mental state of being. Kind of a rock and a hard place here.

For the record, I am not a homophobe, nor do I hate gay people; I'm just following the logic. Just try to think twice before I'm engulfed in flames.

EDIT: And before you say I'm just another one who's misread your post to be about the argument rather than the power of words, consider that this mistake in wording means your post does the exact same thing that you're claiming "homosexuality as a disorder" does; misconstruing logic to lead someone to your desired conclusion. Not that you did it on purpose, but it was done nonetheless.

 

[WeAreStevo]

Spoiler

I know that you put a lovely little caveat in there about how we are not here to debate the term "disorder" or "homosexuality" but I...I just can't...

You cannot use the dictionary to make a judgement about how a behavior or a decision is a mental disorder. There is another book for that, which is the DSM. Homosexuality was in the DSM II as a mental disorder, and as such in the 1950's homosexuals were sent to psychiatric wards as a result of their "illness."

Since then, it was removed from the DSM III and has been out since. More recently, there's been debate on removing "gender identity disorder" from the DSM as well, but that's not necessarily why we're here.

To address what I believe your original intention was (although it was rather convoluted amid all of the disclaimers that you threw up every time "homosexuality is a disorder" came up), yes. Disorder as a term is very manipulative. It can be used to stigmatize and to confine. I believe that as a society we need to move away from stigmatized labels.

However, going simply from a dictionary definition and not from a medical/psychological definition of a disorder, you are truncating the varied positions that exist within the spectrum of disorder and are simply rubber stamping everyone as "you have ________ disorder because you are not considered a high enough percentage to make it common place."

There are so many other facets that need to be examined before making such a claim of having a "disorder" that go far and beyond the dictionary definition.

You missed the point. The OP was commenting on how the use of a particular kind of language can also affect the way one thinks about something. Calling something a "disorder" affects the way in one views it, e.g. the difference between calling someone "eccentric", and saying that someone has a "disorder", each of those words carry different feelings and thoughts, influencing the perception of what is being referred to.

To the OP: you might find Wittgenstein's later work interesting and enjoyable to read.

I didn't miss the point at all. I addressed the main point within my response, acknowledging that words such as "disorder" are weighted to the point where they imply a specific viewpoint (in the case of "disorder" it implies that it is wrong). The rest of the post I was simply giving a background on the use of Homosexuality as a disorder, and then my own view of how people (not necessarily the OP) using dictionary definitions to ascribe psychological determinants onto individuals (again, with claiming someone has a disorder).

Overall, as I again stated, I feel that we need to move beyond stigmatizing words such as "disorder" when used to express a viewpoint on someones preference or beliefs. It only serves to divide people and foster an "us and them" perception.

 

[kaitoshimizu]

I see it more as the physical attraction to *insert binary gender here* which just about half the world is attracted to. Gynephilia and androphilia are not disorders.

If you read the entire OP, you'll see that the OP states that being gay (or anything else like that) is not a disorder. However, according to a modern dictionary, it would be considered such - and so would not liking chocolate or having green eyes. His point is that the dictionary is wrong, or at least very badly worded.

Yeah, it threw me for a second too. The OP is making a "read to the end" lesson.

I'm trying to make the point that calling it something different changes the whole scenario. Calling it homosexuality well there's only 5% of the world who is. Calling it gynephilia or androphilia well then that's over 90% of the world.

Not defying the OP at all, just making a point.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Most of us have read 1984 and we thought with horror about our language being stripped from us for control.

It's more than a little ironic that the guy who denied Soviet oppression existed and called Lenin a hero, is citing that book which is about the consequences of a communist state.

1984 is about Fascism.
Nice try though.

 

[Erttheking]

No. no no no no no no no no no no no no no.....NO!

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Your right a disorder doesn't have to be something that is in the minority. Though this seems to be a philosophical argument. I'll try to stay in that realm the best I can.

Considering nature has the general rules of breathe, eat and digest food, excrete wastes, reproduce, and grow. Homosexuality is a glitch in this system. You can not (at least biologically) reproduced with a same sex partner. In that light Homosexuality can be considered a disorder.

However, regardless of what it is the question should be is it a problem? Humans are not in danger of becoming extinct. On the contrary the world is becoming quite over populated. So why should it matter what if is is a disorder or natures way of curving overpopulation? Until the time comes when the majority of homosexuals wish to become straight there really is no reason to dwell too much into this. Though I can see how some people might take homosexuals as "wrong" and how homosexuals may wish to identify themselves as not something that needs to be "fixed".

 

[Dtox333]

I do not agree that believing in communism is a disorder, in fact i see some peoples belief in it quite commendable. I just do not think the ideology of communism would work for really anyone at this point in time. It is a wonderful idea, but it just simply does not work because of human nature during this point in time. Perhaps if humanity has grown and evolved beyond our desires at some point, then the ideology of communism would work, but for now capitalism better suits the greedy nature of humanity, and has ways of adapting and working with that greed.

on the subject of homosexuality, i personally see nothing wrong with being homosexual, but i am most interested in knowing how something like it happens in ones mentality, being that (I'm assuming at least) one is born homosexual. One has to admit it is rather odd for an organism, human or anything else, to go against its natural, instinctual mating patterns (our sexuality is ESSENTIAL to our survival, it is one of our most primitive and important instincts). So for one organism to prefer another that does not offer it the ability to pass down its own genes, that is something that should be studied further. But again, I do not see it as a disorder or some problem.

And i just wanted to say, I am a christian, and yes, in my belief i do believe that homosexuality is a sin, but in no way do i look down on other people because of that belief. I believe in the fair treatment and the showing of respect to others no matter their sexuality, it is wrong to judge others because of it.

 

[PhantomEcho]

You knew by making that flame-bait title you were going to get responses like this,

I guess I did know it but I was just having a hard time accepting it. I remember back when you could post something like this on this site and everyone would read it and comment on the point you made.

abnormal simply meaning, "deviating from the normal or average".

So, in essence, a disorder is "a physical or mental state of being that deviates from the normal or average state of being".

Now, average is defined as "not out of the ordinary" and ordinary is defined as "of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events".

Your argument falls apart right here.

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...

Look, your point is fine and good.

You're using all these poorly-worded definitions to suggest that folks can use language to persuade others into believing things that aren't true. But that's nothing new. It's not even new to people who regularly fall for propaganda.

The problem is, this is a necessary function of words. They have to be able to do these things in order for communication to have any value.

And speaking of communication:

What you have done with your own words here is construct a misleading title that lured in folks who would immediately suspect you were baiting them into an argument. You crafted a long, drawn out explanation for a sentiment you could have easily expressed in terms of "Words can be used to manipulate the way that you think and perceive things. For example:" which only served to confuse people further.

And then, while they struggle to understand what your rather surprisingly self-aware post is actually getting on about... you attack them for not being as clever as you are with words.

You can't present a post like this and expect most people will get it.

Even if they read to the end, most folks won't really understand what you've done. They'll react to the emotional responses, because you haven't engaged them on their cognitive level. And that's not -their- fault. You've written your post to the wrong audience.


Now, before I cut you loose to respond, allow me to make one other thing abundantly clear. Your post is very cerebral. It's very sharp. It has a very, very good point. But don't get mad at these folks for not understanding it. You intentionally wrote this in a way that you should have KNOWN it would get widely misunderstood.

Just know that some of us out here got it. And agree. Words are a dangerous tool. They're our double-edged sword.

 

[Zipa]

Anyone one else find it ironic that a supposed communist is talking about how to manipulate words and data (aka propaganda ) when communists are well known for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_propaganda

 

[Reynaert]

Anyone one else find it ironic that a supposed communist is talking about how to manipulate words and data (aka propaganda ) when communists are well known for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_propaganda

Yes, hilarious. And we all know other political factions would never dare to do such things.

In all seriousness, that's not what it is about. I see communism as a ideology, a philosophy to a better world for everyone. I know some (most) of you will not agree with me when I say this is the path to a truly free and peacefull world but I do hope we can agree that that's the ultimate goal.

 

[Daverson]

And what if homosexuality is a disorder? What would that actually mean?

Would it justify homophobia? Not any more than it would justify irrational hatred of autistic, albino or even diabetic people.

Would it mean "curing" camps are morally acceptable? Not any more than the internment of Japanese American people during WW2.

Would it prove that it's "wrong" to be gay? Of course not, if anything it'd prove that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality.

 

[orangeban]

First: Greetings fellow communist!

Second: Yeah, language can be funny like that. In particular, I've always been interested in how statistics can be manipulated. The same statistic can imply two different things, based on how you use it and what you say.

Third: While reading this I wondered about political correctness. Is that the same, people controlling the language to make you think certain things? Sort of, the basic idea is to make racism/sexism/etc. etc. taboo in today's society, which is sort of language manipulation, I guess, but firstly it isn't really, and secondly it's for a good cause.

 

[orangeban]

From a purely philosophical viewpoint:

If homosexuality isn't a disorder, what about paedophilia? Or bestiality?

Will those one day be seen as just different parts of the rich tapestry of sexuality, too?

Research into paedophilia seems to indicate that it, like sexual preference for people of the same gender, is not a voluntary choice. I have little doubt that both are caused by a combination of genetics, unutero conditions, and life experiences early on. At some point, its hard wired into us.

They are either both disorders or neither is. And to head off the RAGE replies, I'm a bi man who is not inclinded to children and I'm not saying "gay people as as bad as pedos". I'm saying that both of them are wired before being aware of their sexuality and after that they can choose to do it or not, but they both are locked into their preferences.

Personally I wish people would get over the term and fight for it to be considered a medical condition/fact. It would grant protection for gay rights in many countries that don't already recognize those rights (for example, it would probably enable gay marriage in the US under the existing ADA rules)

Hmm, thinking about the classification of "disorder", maybe we need another rule saying that "disorders" are things that are rare and harmful to society or the individual. Then Pedophilia could be filed under that. However, then I guess a lot of other stuff could be filed under it, so maybe not.

 

[Ragnarok185]

there is no such thing a Normal or an Average human. so by logic everybody has some sort of disorder.

 

[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.

There is actually an interesting history involved here. Prior to the 1960's homosexuality was largely considered a willful and perverted deviation from the norm. Homosexuals wanted to be abominations that stood against and threatened the fabric and sanctity of "healthy and normal" heterosexual relationships. Because homosexuals were seen as being such sinful deviants, they must've chosen to be exactly to be that when they chose to engage in homosexual acts. Much like a murder or rapist knows (should know) that they have done wrong and then try to hide and lie to cover up the horrible things they have done.

I am paraphrasing here, but this is what I have come to understand of the social attitudes towards gays prior to the modern gay rights movement. And, how they changed as that movement got started and as the mental health institutions become more objective and enlightened.

What I have learned (but not done enough research of my own to confirm), was that it was a gay rights activist(s) that persuaded the American Psychological Association to classify homosexuality as a disorder in order for gays to receive a degree of compassion and fair treatment, not only from the health industry but from the public as well. No one chooses to have a disorder. Prior to this gays were subjected to all forms of adversion therapy, electroconvulsive shock therapy and even lobotomy. Now they were (more likely) to be treated like someone suffering from depression or PTSD. They were no longer willfully anti-social or psychopathic. Notice how the perception of choice factors heavily into this distinction. Also, it is/was generally accepted that a depressed person can function more or less normally and still be trusted to make moral decisions. A psychopath cannot.

Fast forward to the 1980's/early 90's. I cant say if people made a concious decision to re-examine that earlier classification, or if the newer generation of activists and professionals could no longer stand/support homosexuality being classified as a disorder.

no disrespect but lets see some academic level sources please, because I have never heard that before.

 

[Zen Toombs]

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.

When I first saw this post, I was ready to jump down your throat. However, once I took a look at your full post, I found it to be very interesting and insightful. Thank you for your public service announcement, and I hope that people will read your full post before responding.

Also, your last line reminds me of a quote:

"There are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Pyramid Head]

Miriam-Webster is just a reference, not an end all be all authority on the English language. Even if you can stretch it and say homosexuality is out of the ordinary, the only thing it affects is personal preference, and that's something we've never had control over. In fact i would go so far to say since there is no negative effects of homosexuality, it isn't a disorder. Besides, i'm sure that recent publications of other dictionaries have multiple definitions of "Disorder" as human medical knowledge evolves.

But that said, i've got a gripe with something. Is 3.5% an accurate number? It seems to me like since a large chunk of homosexuals still remain in the closet, we wouldn't get a proper measurement, especially with how much power conservative homophobes have been gaining lately.

 

[spartan231490]

Sorry no one seems to want to read your post in it's entirety, I'm really beginning to be upset by the number of people on this site who do that, but that's a different story.

Now, on to the topic at hand. I'm going to sum up my agreement with your post with a quote: "For while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning . . ." While truth is a powerful weapon, lies can be even more powerful, for they are often more easily believed than the truth. Words affect thoughts, thoughts affect actions, actions affect thoughts. This is why things like hypnosis can be so powerful.

That's why the words of a single man can move a nation. Martin Luther King Jr. Ghandi. Machiavelli. The Bible. Budda. We remember these men not for their actions, but for their words. Words that have inspired men even after the death of the speaker.

 

[JonnyHG]

So what would religion be? Is that a mental disorder?

Hearing voices and talking to things that don't actually exist? Pretty sure we've got a disorder for that.