Homosexuality as a disorder

[Bara_no_Hime]

It doesn't matter if its a medical dictionary or not, it still matters what year it was published; definitions get updated and changed all the time.

Well, the OP said it was an online dictionary - so the publication date is whenever it was last updated. Since online dictionaries didn't exist before the mid 1990s, it is clearly at least that recent.

Also, it doesn't matter because the point has nothing to do with homosexuality - it has to do with the dictionary definition of a disorder being absurd, wrong, and offensive to anyone with green eyes, who dislikes chocolate, female gamers, and basically anyone who isn't in the majority about all things.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It doesn't matter if its a medical dictionary or not, it still matters what year it was published; definitions get updated and changed all the time.

Now you're just being daft. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary is identified as the only dictionary I use in the first sentence of the OP. If you do not know that dictionary is up to date, I am shocked. Maybe it's just being in debate that makes me think of that as common knowledge, so correct me if it is not.

However, in my last post I told you it is up to date, so you had no excuse for continuing this line of discussion and I will have no further part in it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Being a communist is not a disorder, it's a political view.

However, it's one I believe to be unworkable on any large national scale. On the other hand, it's great for running families.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Did i need to read the links and the post before i could post or just the post itself? Cause i didnt read the links i just assumed they proved the statistics you gave, also you cant call yourself a communist until you take part in at least one revolution, until then youre just a girly little socialist

 

[DionysusSnoopy]

I see where your coming from in just asking people to be careful about what they read and how it is worded. Did a whole section on manipulating statistics visually and numerically (meaning showing how 2 out of 10 responses is 20% etc) to highlight certain aspects. So most stats get some scrutiny when I see them. In the UK, if you are interested, Stephen Fry did a program pretty much based on words and languages; Fry's Planet Word.

 

[Olrod]

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.

 

[Lilani]

You might want to check what year that dictionary is. Homosexuality hasn't been classified as a "disorder" since, I think the 70s (not sure when exactly it changed).

Read the post, the full post, before responding to it. If you had done so, you would not have responded with the comment you did respond with.

If you have not done so, what gives you the right to post? As long as my post was, clearly it had a very complex chain of thought. If you did not read any of it, you are not commenting on the thread, you are commenting on what you want to comment on based on the title of the thread in the space dedicated to the tread and should just comment that shit elsewhere.

You might want to check what year that dictionary is. Homosexuality hasn't been classified as a "disorder" since, I think the 70s (not sure when exactly it changed).

That, of course, is based on the DSM. And the DSM/medical definitions are not necessarily the same as the dictionary's definition. Meriam-Webster online is probably up to date, but is it giving clinical advice? No.

Kind of like how the concept of a scientific theory and a layperson's idea of a theory are two different things.

You might want to check what year that dictionary is. Homosexuality hasn't been classified as a "disorder" since, I think the 70s (not sure when exactly it changed).

He's using the technical meaning of "disorder" to make his claim. By his logic, not liking chocolate would also be disorder.

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.

Oh, well excuse me. This first sentence seemed quite clear.

By definition, homosexuality could be described as a disorder, which is defined as "an abnormal physical or mental condition", condition simply meaning "a state of being" abnormal simply meaning, "deviating from the normal or average".

So please forgive me for filling in the blanks from there and attempting to save a poor soul from the misleading thread title. You knew by making that flame-bait title you were going to get responses like this, so don't get on your high-horse and act like the merry king of context clues. If you want this to be all professional and proper about this, then you should know the introduction is always a summary of your points and purpose, which is followed by the body which illustrates these points, which is followed by the conclusion which ties it altogether and restates the purpose. That is the basic format of all informational and persuasive essays. To break that basic and accepted format can cause confusion in both your purpose and intent, so if such misunderstandings bother you then perhaps you should reconsider how you present your arguments in the future.

 

[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.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Did i need to read the links and the post before i could post or just the post itself? Cause i didnt read the links i just assumed they proved the statistics you gave, also you cant call yourself a communist until you take part in at least one revolution, until then youre just a girly little socialist

Just the post is fine. Posting on the topic of the thread rather than just insulting me would make it even better.

Either way, I'm just glad you read the post.

 

[walrusaurus]

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. You've defined abnormal to mean anything deviating from the normal, but without objective/rigorous definition of normal, that is a logically meaningless statement.

Disorders are things that are abnormal
Not normal things are those that are not of the average
Average is not out of the ordinary
Ordinary is your expectation of normal

thus your definition of normal is:

Not normal things are those that are not of what is not outside of your expectation of normal.
thusly
Not normal things are those that are outside your expectation of normal.
or simply
~P=~P

 

[Silvianoshei]

It doesn't matter if its a medical dictionary or not, it still matters what year it was published; definitions get updated and changed all the time.

Well, the OP said it was an online dictionary - so the publication date is whenever it was last updated. Since online dictionaries didn't exist before the mid 1990s, it is clearly at least that recent.

Also, it doesn't matter because the point has nothing to do with homosexuality - it has to do with the dictionary definition of a disorder being absurd, wrong, and offensive to anyone with green eyes, who dislikes chocolate, female gamers, and basically anyone who isn't in the majority about all things.

Hang on a sec. No it doesn't. We can't say that the word "disorder" is the same meaning as "behavioral choices in the minority." Disorder is a specific medical term, regardless of the dictionary it resides in. People putting together dictionaries have standards, go read my other post, lol.

Disorder, when referring to homosexuality (which has a biological significance, like obesity, or even something simple like a unibrow), is a medical term. Not a social one.

 

[hailfire]

TL;DR
seriously dude, you could have said the excact same thing in much fewer words. here is an abridged version of your comment.
"Hello! I am a communist! that means I have a disorder! gay people are also not very common in places other than san fransico! that means they have a disorder! the moral of the story is 'JOIN COMMUNISM'!"

 

[Dags90]

Using these definitions, green eyes and red hair are "disorders" in the U.S. In the whittling down of definitions, the word "normal" is ultimately never dealt with.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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...

 

[Something Amyss]

As is citing legit sources and if your dictionary still lists homosexuality as a disorder, then you obviously haven't done that.

That's not what he's saying. He's using the dictionary definition of "disorder:"

3: an abnormal physical or mental condition

And "abnormal:"

deviating from the normal or average

What does his dictionary say about homosexuality?

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1
: the quality or state of being homosexual
2
: erotic activity with another of the same sex

...Do you see it defining homosexuality as a disorder?

Gah, now you've got me defending a guy who said I didn't read his thread because he couldn't understand my post.

 

[.No.]

How about making a title that's relevant to the topic? I understand that the chain of logic changes it, but AT LEAST make it something that isn't as flame baity.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Using these definitions, green eyes and red hair are "disorders" in the U.S. In the whittling down of definitions, the word "normal" is ultimately never dealt with.

It says normal or average, I don't have to deal with normal, as I pointed out. With or you only have to meet one condition. It logically follows.

However, what I care less about is that and more about the fact that, despite my clear statement at the start of the thread, you clearly did not read the whole thing and are not posting on the topic of the thread.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

As is citing legit sources and if your dictionary still lists homosexuality as a disorder, then you obviously haven't done that.

That's not what he's saying. He's using the dictionary definition of "disorder:"

3: an abnormal physical or mental condition

And "abnormal:"

deviating from the normal or average

What does his dictionary say about homosexuality?

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1
: the quality or state of being homosexual
2
: erotic activity with another of the same sex

...Do you see it defining homosexuality as a disorder?

Gah, now you've got me defending a guy who said I didn't read his thread because he couldn't understand my post.

Yeah, thanks for that. I'm sorry about the other.

 

[Something Amyss]

Speaking of "gah," I don't know how this posted twice.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

Your argument falls apart right here. You've defined abnormal to mean anything deviating from the normal, but without objective definition of normal, that is a logically meaningless statement.

Actually, if you read to the end, the OP makes that very point. His argument is that the dictionary definition is a bad one, and that it makes an implied attack on everyone who doesn't follow the majority.