Homosexuality as a disorder

[2012 Wont Happen]

All definitions in this come from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. This is written using American figures because those are what I have researched.

edit Read this whole post before you post in this thread. If you do not, you did not get the point I was making and can go right back to tl;drville. By the end of this, you should NOT be commenting on the idea of homosexuality being a mental disorder. The chain of logic regarding that is put forward as a startling example of a greater truth about human discourse as is made perfectly clear at the end of this post. It was supposed to be a shock ending, but everyone is too fucking lazy to read it and get the full impact, so this warning became necessary.

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.

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, 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".

Now, in my country, as of April 11th of this year, only 3.5% of the population is gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

http://wiwp.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

You might argue that that is a large enough percentage to say that it is not something that could not be expected in the normal order of events. However, in such a case, I would have only one question for you: would you expect an "average" or "ordinary" American to support a shift to Communism? No sane person would answer yes, unless of course they thought the 3.5% could be considered ordinary, because a full 11% or Americans support a shift to Communism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/congress-approval-problem-in-one-chart/2011/11/15/gIQAkHmtON_blog.html#excerpt

Clearly, 3.5% is not enough to be considered ordinary. In this way, it is not average and meets our extended disorder definition "a physical or mental state of being that deviates from the normal or average state of being".

So, where am I going with this? Well, I am not going to conclude that homosexuality is in any way wrong just because it can be considered a disorder. Nor am I honestly suggesting that homosexuality be considered a disorder. I am, instead, using this as a way to highlight a question as to how the fundamental building block of our interaction as humans, language, can be used to trick us into believing some rather horrendous things.

And this cannot just be applied to homosexuality. As a Communist, I see the threat of this sort of usage of the language, this totally technically logically sound use of the language I will add, to have my beliefs classified as a mental disorder. After all, only 11% of the population would support a shift to Communism while a full 16.6% of the population have a "Major Depressive Disorder".

http://www.mentalhealth.com/

"Of course a belief in Communism, being even more rare, is a disorder" they will say just as I have said to you "of course homosexuality, being so rare, is a disorder".

Most of us have read 1984 and we thought with horror about our language being stripped from us for control. However, such is unnecessary. The tools for atrocity are already present in the dictionaries and definitions we use every day to understand the world around us.

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.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

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).

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

 

[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).

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

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

It's not a disorder in the sense of the typical connotation we associate with the word, but it is a disorder in the sense that it is something outside what is considered "normal."

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

"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.

It's not a disorder in the sense of the typical connotation we associate with the word, but it is a disorder in the sense that it is something outside what is considered "normal."

Neither of you read the part at the end did you?

 

[TheRussian]

From the perspective of a straight Russian-American brought up in Brighton Beach, I think it is a mental disorder. *FLAME SHIELDS UP*

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Be careful about what you read folks. It's easy to forget that writing can be engineered in a way to manipulate the way you interpret information. The best propaganda is the propaganda that doesn't seem like propaganda.

OT: I have a fantastic craving for eating raw anchovies outside of the tin. I buy them at the supermarket and eat them while they are still cold out in my car. Because of statistics someone else can look up, I clearly have a disorder as the majority of people think eating anchovies out of the tin on their own is disgusting or crazy.

[sub][sub]Yes, I do.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

Well no matter what way homosexuality is either a choice or a genetic thing, in which it is could justify it being a disorder due to the fact if all humans where gay breeding would be impossible.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Be careful about what you read folks. It's easy to forget that writing can be engineered in a way to manipulate the way you interpret information. The best propaganda is the propaganda that doesn't seem like propaganda.

Congratulations on being the first person to comment on what the thread is about...

 

[ADDLibrarian]

*snip

First off, yes I did read the entire response, it doesn't make it any less pointless and as it still important to know what year the dictionary was published before you spout off definitions that may be out of date, or rambling on about semantics just to get people to look at your post because you mention homosexuality.
Your point is that word choice is important.
As is citing legit sources and if your dictionary still lists homosexuality as a disorder, then you obviously haven't done that.

 

[aba1]

I dunno I guess you could call it a disorder in the sense that it is definitely outside the normal and isn't normal. I don't think it is wrong to be gay don't get me wrong but it is far from a normal thing. I can see it being a disorder if you consider humans are not meant to be attracted to the same sex

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

OP, I think you may have, in an attempt to show the unreliability of Dictionaries (and the ability to manipulate with the written word), inadvertently stepped in something. I read to the end, so I saw the point you were making. And a good thing too, cause I was getting ready to hit that Report button. However, you turned it around and used that very idea to make your point. Well done.

I hope you don't get a Warning for this, since it actually isn't offensive once you get to the end. Good luck to you.

Also, another good example: having Green eyes. Arguably the most beautiful of all eye colors and quite rare.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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.

First off, yes I did read the entire response, it doesn't make it any less pointless and as it still important to know what year the dictionary was published before you spout off definitions that may be out of date, or rambling on about semantics just to get people to look at your post because you mention homosexuality.

You did not read the whole post or you would have known I did not once use a medical dictionary. Hell, if you had looked at first sentence of the post you would have known I used an online dictionary which is reputable and up to date.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Then you probably didn't read my response.

But yeah, how dare I point out the difference between diagnostic and technical definitions who didn't seem to get the difference! Since you didn't read my original post, I'll highlight the fact I'm not talking about you.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Be careful about what you read folks. It's easy to forget that writing can be engineered in a way to manipulate the way you interpret information. The best propaganda is the propaganda that doesn't seem like propaganda.

Congratulations on being the first person to comment on what the thread is about...

Reading the OP seems to be a dying habit these days, I'm sorry to say.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

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.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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

Then you probably didn't read my response.

But yeah, how dare I point out the difference between diagnostic and technical definitions who didn't seem to get the difference! Since you didn't read my original post, I'll highlight the fact I'm not talking about you.

I read but misinterpreted it. It seemed that you were still implying that the thread itself is genuinely about homosexuality, which reading to the end of it is pretty apparently not the case.