Homosexuality as a disorder

[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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Same point: Heterosexuality is a disorder.

Taking the race as a whole, Humanity will attempt to sleep with anything, due to the biological need to receive dopamine. Of the animal species, we are one of the few that has no specific mating season, no specific mating ritual, no specific mating grouping, and many members of our species will deliberately mate with non-alphas.

This simply leads us to believe that any narrowing of the search for potential mates is an anomaly that will directly harm our well-being - so any sexual preference will be damaging to our continued happiness.

Next we find out that engaging in sexual acts without the requirement for procreation still gives a high chance of procreative activity taking place - leading to a detriment in both partners as they try to take care of an unwanted fetus.

Therefore, the most logical way of having sex is to practice homosexual sex while not wishing to procreate, and heterosexual sex with Alphas when wishing to procreate.

Once procreation has taken place, men and women should return to homosexual activity as soon as is feasible, to avoid dopamine loss.

Same point: Sexuality is a disorder

Sex *could* kill you. Do you know what the human body goes through when you have sex? Pupils dilate, arteries constrict, core temperature rises, heart races, blood pressure skyrockets, respiration becomes rapid and shallow, the brain fires bursts of electrical impulses from nowhere to nowhere, and secretions spit out of every gland, and the muscles tense and spasm like you're lifting three times your body weight. It's violent. It's ugly. And it's messy. And if God hadn't made it *unbelievably* fun, the human race would have died out eons ago.

Therefore, sexuality is a disorder that simply seeks to re-create itself in humans.

Same point: Disorders are a disorder.

All change to mankind brings risk. Risk shortens life-span. There is no need to lengthen life-span. Therefore there is no need to take risk. Therefore there is no need to change. Therefore any changes to humanity threatens it's own survival and need to be destroyed.

Words are powerful things. Especially in the hands of someone who can embellish.

 

[viranimus]

Op, I get you. I really do on this point. Quite frankly the sum of all human knowledge is something that is completely subjective. All we know is just waiting to be either validated or rebuked. So if that is the case it is logical that words can be utilized in interpretive fashions.

Your right. Words can be used to paint something in a contradictory light as one person can view it one way and a simple rewording can allow someone to view the same situation in the exact opposite. The words ability for subjective interpretation are reflective of how our knowledge is also open for subjective interpretation.

Humanity is defined by our use of tools. Language is one of the greatest tools we have ever created. Our tools are a representation of our nature, and just as our tools are defined by our nature, we are defined by the nature of our tools. So it goes without saying our tools would reflect our nature as well. Flaws and all.

However I think you have managed to miss your own point because you have in fact used the words to impose your own perspective on the situation. Im not saying anything pro or con about homosexuality or communism here, but you have imposed your own sense of morality on both situation and choose to let your words view them as favorable instead of a negative light. The decision to do so is your own development and what your general consensus agrees and adheres to.

Thats the real problem. Its not that the words or definitions allow us to construe greater meaning to the words. Its that we fail to see that the words are just a tool of the existing commonly accepted morality. Viewing something as good or evil does not make it good or evil, It means that a general consensus has agreed something is either good or evil. Homosexuallity in this sense is neither natural or abhorrent. Its morallity is simply the agreed consensus of those who are viewing that situation at any given time. Just like certain cultures have viewed homosexuality in a positive light, and how other cultures view it in a negative light. It truly is nothing more than a matter of perspectives.

I hate to use a cliche to end this, But I find myself tripping over the same thing. It feels like a case of "Dont hate the player(words), Hate the game (nature of morality)"

 

[girzwald]

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).

Only because people in the scientific/medical community were pressured to change it from advocate groups. Not through consensus.

Your statement shows you are ignorant of why/how homosexuality was classified as a disorder in the 1st place. You should really avoid making such sweeping assumptions and accusations when you dont have the necessary facts.

I love when people say things like you said. No refutations, no counter points, no facts of your own just..... "I'm right, you're wrong"

And you call me ignorant and accuse ME of sweeping assumptions and accusations?

Sorry bud, but the facts are against YOU. Its clear by your tone and feigned outrage think you that the ONLY reason homosexuality was classified as a disorder was because of them thar intolerant Christians and other religious types but no, sorry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disorder

And I really wont bother trying to lay any facts at your feet, because no matter how many sources I cite, no how accurate my information, intellectually dishonest twats like you, will declare it an unreliable source and dismiss it as out of whole cloth. Not because of its merits, but because you disagree with it. Which is why debates on any topic in places like these forums and around the world, is in such a piss poor state.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

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.

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

You are missing a key part of what makes a disorder, Distress.

Distress is required to define a disorder, and none is found simply by being homosexual.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

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.

This is one of the greatest threads of all time.

OP, you have an interesting thought.
And all the other posters PROVE YOUR POINT

the thread that demonstrates itself. Fantastic