Homosexuality as a disorder

[Nergy]

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?

The difference is that homosexuality is between consenting adults, which harms nobody and paedophilia is something is a severe danger to others.

While both may be about who is attracted to who, it has to be examined by society and judged.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

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.

 

[Navvan]

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.

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.

 

[Batou667]

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'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.

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?

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

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'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.

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?

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.

 

[GaltarDude1138]

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.

 

[GaltarDude1138]

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.

 

[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.