Homosexuality is a Mental Disorder

I am of the opinion that homosexuality is a mental disorder. This thread will explore the history of homosexuality as a mental disorder, and the reasons why is should be classified once again as a mental disorder. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist nor do I claim to be an expert on the issue but there are plenty who are who would agree with me. The APA changed the DSM in 1973 not as a result of any new scientific findings, but as a result of political pressures:

More recent studies point to homosexuality as a mental disorder:
Homosexuality a Psychological Disorder: Pentagon Document
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2006/jun/06062008

Homosexual activists apply pressure to the APA:
NARTH Report Shows Gay Activist Influence on Mental Health Organizations
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2006/feb/06020902

Spitzer flips and flips and flips again regarding curing homosexuality:
Attempts To Change Sexual Orientation
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

More to come...

 

It's funny that in discussions like this, people would rather focus on conspiracy theories about how and why it was removed from the DSM rather than actually providing justification for why it should be in there. To me, that just sounds like defeat by people who have no case without a tangentially related conspiracy behind them.

The classification of something as a mental disorder an arbitrary, man-made concept in the first place. Before you can even begin to make such an argument, you must first agree on what it even means to be a mental disorder - and even psychologists can't agree on that. But perhaps that would be a far better place to start such a discussion. Does it prevent you from being able to work? Make friends? Generally be a well disposition and adjusted individual capable of independence and function in society? These are the types of questions asked when deciding to call something a mental disorder.

 

To quote this first link:

Although homosexuality has traditionally been considered a psychological disorder the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses over thirty years ago, claiming that it “implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities.” ​

...And really, what more needs to be said? Also, it's worth noting that while the military was a long-standing holdout on the whole "homosexuality is bad" thing (much like on "women are not as tough as men in combat" thing), even they've given up that game - this article is more than 6 years old, and it shows by invoking things like DADT. But let's skip right to the most important piece: that homosexuality "implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities". Now, if this is true, then the argument is over. Homosexuality is in that case no more a mental disorder than liking lobster ice cream or being a Janist.

And what do we observe in the real world? Well, almost all negative impacts correlated with homosexuality (everything up to and including the AIDS epidemic) can be attributed largely to outside factors. Why do gay kids end up homeless more often? Because they're more likely to be thrown out of their homes by intolerant parents who can't stand the fact that their kids are gay. Why are homosexuals more often depressed? Because they are more often than not surrounded by hatred due to their sexuality. Why the higher rate of attempted suicide? Same deal. Why more drug abuse? Because desperate people do desperate things to feel happy. Why is there more HIV? Hell, even the gay night life is at least partially to blame on the fact that we can't do this (*)(*)(*)(*) in the open, lest we get an assortment of funny looks; the fact that what is stereotypically considered the homosexual sexual activity of choice (it's not; oral is) has a higher transmission rate of STDs can hardly be considered slam-dunk evidence of mental disorders. So really, what's the argument here? If homosexuality is a mental disorder, what's the actual detriment?

As Jeff implicitly pointed out, there is nothing inherent about homosexuality that prevents people from living full, happy lives. Nothing that inherently prevents us from making friends (unless you want to get into victim-blaming), getting jobs (discrimination is not a mental disease), or being well-adjusted, happy members of society. So what's the case to be made, huh?

 

Catholicism used to be illegal in Britain. It stopped being illegal not because of any in-depth investigation of the faith but because of political pressure. By your argument, Catholicism is a crime.

 

The potential for HIV is pretty much the only factor I can see that might justify homosexuality as a detriment, although like you said, that's hardly evidence of it as a mental disorder... If that's the case, then apparently homosexuality wasn't a mental disorder until HIV came into existence in the 1980's. Regardless, simply having an inherant risk does not a mental disorder make, especially when said risks can be controlled. People have a variety of lifestyles, hobbies, careers, diets and pass-times which present them with risks. If living a life with risk is a disease, than anyone who drives a car is diseased, anyone who plays a sport, rock-climbs, eats a donut, or goes to school. Taking measured risks and reasonable precautions is a normal part of life, even for abnormal activities.

As a gay man in a monogamous relationship, am no more likely to get an STD than anybody else. Like you say, it's sad that the stigma and fear of rejection prevents many gay men from forming long-term relationships for fear of being discovered, where they instead find themselves in casual encounters. This is not an excuse for stupid behavior among gay men that leads to the spread of STD's, but it is a cause from an undue burdon.​

 

Bingo. Really, most of the woes of the homosexual community have to do with outside influence.

 

There's no real advantage to being homosexual, just saying. If there was a way to change it, then I don't see why anyone would not want to.

 

I could provide a lot of information showing that homosexuality is one of the normal variations in the sexual behavior of humans and many mammals. However, I am sure that my time would be wasted. There is saying that goes, you can't get enough of what you don't want. I don't think this thread is really about whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Why would someone devote a lot of energy to "proving" homosexuality is a mental disorder? I don't know the answer, but here is a possibility.

How many times have we seen virulent homophobes turn out to be closet homosexuals. The main reason these homophobes want society to oppress gays, is that the homophobe himself wants society to keep him from expressing a part of himself he hates or is ashamed of and which he is afraid he cannot control. The homophobe may have repressed his desires so effectively that he has sublimated them into a hatred of homosexuality or all homosexuals.

Much like if you have to lose weight, you don't want a lot of tempting food around.

 

To lib'rals...

... It's a dis-ease!

 

Well, I'd appreciate it.

 

I am of the opinion that some are obsessed with meddling in others affairs are they bothering you? To many people on here obsessed with this it's down right silly!

 

Again, gay/lesbian sexual behaviors are comparable to drug junkyism and bad for health. With sex abuse, If an man has sex with an underage girl or in some cases if a woman has sex with an underage boy, then they should do prison time for statutory rape. But as I’ve repeated, gay/lesbian activities whether it’s consent or forced are bad & the punishment for statutory rape must be more when it’s homosexual/lesbian in nature. That means if a man has sex with an underage girl the punishment = if a woman has sex with an underage boy. But if the statutory rape is gay such as in Harvey B. Milk’s case, then it’s my view that the punishment for sex abuse must be more because sex abuse is worse when it’s gay/lesbian in nature.

 

Here are a couple references to homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y
Brain studies show differences in the brain structure of men and women. The brains of homosexual men are closer to the brain structure of women. I don't know what the results are for gay women but I assume they are analgous. You could google distributions of homosexuality in humans or homosexual brain structure. It's an interesting topic but I can do is recall studies and articles I've seen. I don't have the time to do the research.

I do, however, believe that homophobia is a mental disorder.

 

It's right to be 'bigoted' against homosexuality and transexuality (which is worse) just as it's right to be 'bigoted' against cocaina smoking. It's undebatable truth that if a person's a victim of childhood sex abuse, then it's more likely he or she will do gay/lesbian conduct repeating what he learned. Many gay child molesters were victims of homosexual rapes when they were boys such as by gay priests. There could be other causes which haven't been conclusively proven such as genes, but if that's true then the gay gene would be the same thing as a cancer or heart attack gene. We should work to find a cure for the gay gene if indeed this is true.

 

I am not sure how whom you are attracted to is a mental disorder, or even something that there is a conscience choice in.

Clearly psychiatrists and psychologists seem to think it is not. Clearly there is no indication of attraction to gender being malleable in any way, shape, or form.

Now if it is a question of sexual practices, then may I remind folks that straight people can and do engage in oral sex and anal sex?

 

Here is my response to the following posts:

It's not about the conspiracy theory. It is not about arbitrary, man-made concepts. It is about a real discussion on the abnormal behavior called homosexuality. You are free not to contribute to the discussion, but simply saying homosexuals can work in no way makes homosexual behavior normal.

Another one claiming homosexuality is normal, and adding that homosexuals are persecuted by society.

Here's a funny one. This guy called "HonestJoe" makes a comparison between homosexuality, a perverted sexual behavior, and one's chosen religious denomination:

Is that really an honest comparison, HonestJoe? Is there really a comparison between worshiping God and a man having sex with a man? Most people understand the history behind Catholisism being banned in England so legalities aside, where is the honesty in your statement?

So what you are saying is that it's okay as long as you are monogamous or are you saying that because you are monogamous it is therefore normal behavior? I am not saying that homosexuality is a disease, I am saying it is a mental disorder or a mental illness. Driving a car, playing sports, rock climing, eating doughnuts and going to school are activities, not unnatural sexual inclinations. I fail to see a comparison here either.

It's everybody elses fault? Really?

Exactly. If I came up with a pill that would cure homosexuality with one dose, how many homosexuals would choose to take it? I will bring this idea up in more detail later.

Finally, someone claiming he can prove homosexuality is normal...well, fine let's here it. But first let us agree on definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal
Now. Which of the above two definition would best fit regarding homosexuality?
If you said "normal", then you are too dumb to continue debating further and may sit down. Really people, we must agree that homosexuality by definition is abnormal behavior. Once we have agreed upon that, then we can debate the merits of homosexuality and mental illness.

Now, regarding his insinuation that I am a homophobe or a closet homosexual. I can assure you that I am indeed a heterosexual. I love women. I love everything about them. How could anyone not? See, and that is exactly why homosexuality is a mental disorder. You must be crazy if you don't like women and all they have to offer sexually. It seems to me that there is no real clear definition of homophobe. Some say it is for people who hate homosexuals, others say it is people who are gay self hating...I don't know. It is a made up word that means nothing to me.

 

So, if I don't like broccoli and you do, does that make me crazy too? This is your standard for mental disorders?

I don't like women sexually. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. What I do do or like is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Get used to the fact that everyone on Earth is not like you.

 

Pretty sure I didn't say "homosexuality is normal". Owning a Ferrari sure as hell ain't "normal" in this economy, and neither is running a Kingmaker D&D campaign or traveling cross-country to invitational tournaments (of whatever), but they are not "abnormal" in the way we would generally contextualize abnormality. They're also certainly not "wrong" or "a mental disorder". And yes, homosexuals are persecuted by society in many places, including in the USA. Do you think this is not a correct statement?

To take it from you guys, both are a choice, both are "not normal" (it's not "believing in god", it's "believing in a specific god in a specific way"), and Catholicism, like homosexuality, was banned not because it was inherently wrong or dangerous, but because people didn't like it.

Homosexuality is found within thousands of species. Hell, even just finding that it is a possible state within our own qualifies it as "natural". It's natural for some people to be homosexual.

Go on, name me one negative side-effect correlated to homosexuality which cannot easily be explained via outside factors. Because depression, homelessness, joblessness, suicide, drug abuse, and yes, even STD rates are largely to blame on the way people react to homosexuals, rather than the state of being homosexual in and of itself.

Except that by using this dichotomy, and imploring the words this way, you've set up contextual errors. "Abnormal" is a very high-content word. It has a lot of connotations, overwhelmingly negative ones. By declaring homosexuality as "abnormal" by definition, you've already effectively poisoned the well. Is it any wonder we object to this? Yes, if you want to claim a dichotomy between "normal" and "abnormal", and claim that "normal" is something that most people are, then homosexuality is clearly abnormal. But that can ONLY work if the singular thing implied by abnormal, when stated, is "not normal". Otherwise, you've redefined "abnormal" outside of your dichotomy and from a semantic level, that does not work.

Wait, are you serious? Is this seriously the position you're coming from? Or was this a joke? I'm really hoping the latter...

 

So full of it.

So 50% of the homosexual male brains resembled 52% of the heterosexual female brains, the other 50% DID NOT resemble those brains.
And 55% of the homosexual female brains resembled 56% of the heterosexual male brains. The other 45 % DID NOT resemble those brains. And from this you make the preposterous assertion that "The brains of homosexual men are closer to the brain structure of women". Nonsense. You believe what you soooooo desperately want to believe.

 

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

Don't make me cross post the physical differences, though I would love to see you try to explain how a mental disorder could change your hair whorl or the ridge density of your fingerprints. I predict you'll ignore that though.

 

I would like to point out other 'conditions' that are no longer considered 'mental disorders"

Female Hysteria- yep those whacky women- because they were women they were prone to all sorts of mental conditions that men don't get. Oops...no longer considered a disorder.

here is a good one:
"dysaethesia aethiopica"

Found exclusively among Blacks, dysaethesia aethiopica — "called by overseers 'rascality'" — was characterized by partial insensitivity of the skin and "so great a ****tude of the intellectual faculties, as to be like a person half asleep."[4] Other symptoms included "lesions of the body discoverable to the medical observer, which are always present and sufficient to account for the symptoms."[5][6] Cartwright noted that the existence of dysaethesia aethiopica was "clearly established by the most direct and positive testimony," but other doctors had failed to notice it because their "attention [had] not been sufficiently directed to the maladies of the negro race."[4]

According to Cartwright, dysaethesia aethiopica was "much more prevalent among free negroes living in clusters by themselves, than among slaves on our plantations, and attacks only such slaves as live like free negroes in regard to diet, drinks, exercise, etc." — indeed, according to Cartwright, "nearly all [free negroes] are more or less afflicted with it, that have not got some white person to direct and to take care of them."[7]

yeah- the only reason that a mental disorder changes is because of political pressure.....

LOL...

 

Being left handed is clearly not 'normal'- only about 10-12% of all people are left handed.

It doesn't appear to be genetic, but people are born with one inclination or the other- though if forced by family or society they can learn to be right handed.

Being left handed as at times has been seen as a sign of the devil, a sign of neurosis, criminality and homosexuality.

The word Sinister comes from the latin word Sinister for Left.

From what I have seen being Left handed is abnormal as being Gay.

 

Yes, it was an honest comparison though it had nothing to do with equating homosexuality and Catholicism (as I'm sure you well know despite all your talk about honesty).

I was comparing the reason the status of homosexuality and Catholicism was changed both had absolutely nothing to do with their validity or otherwise. As you rightly point out, that doesn't automatically make legitimising either of them right but neither do it automatically make legitimising either of them wrong.

Put simply, the politics behind the change of the medical definition of homosexuality is totally irrelevant to it's actual validity. If you want to say it's a mental disorder, you need to prove it's a mental disorder.

 

How many more threads do you want to run this over?

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...-gay-marriage-question-14.html#post1061774765

In which I stated this:

And you replied with this:

That was really all I needed to know. You want religion to dictate the terms of science. You admitted it here. You want religion to state the diagnosis and you think it is science's onus to somehow disprove religious proclamations.

Good luck with that!

 

Good find.

So... OP. You wanna recant that last bit, the whole "I wish science was still dictated not by what is right and wrong but by the whims of religion" thing, or simply give up all credibility and leave the thread?

- - - Updated - - -

This is a much better analogy than mine. Jesus, it's almost as if... *gasp* Society realized that it was wrong about something!

Meanwhile, the pair of Jeffs, Colombine, and myself have essentially run one gigantic truck over this entire (stupid, stupid) thread. So here's the million-dollar question - is this the type of thread where:
A) The OP vanishes into the mist to avoid losing face
B) The OP picks the weakest points possible, avoids the strong ones, argues from tone, and is generally a little (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it
C) The OP is wrong, remains wrong, and refuses to understand how or why even as argument after argument is completely destroyed.

My money's on C, given PatriotNews's previous performances...