Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2010-06-02 14:22:42
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6389|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How does homosexuality not fit this definition? I didn't say it is good, but I didn't say it is bad either. How is this a "nasty can of worms"?

They don't function in one of the two most basic ways we understand humans to function on an instinctual level. It's not good or bad it just is.
Malady:  illness: impairment of normal physiological function affecting part or all of an organism
Dysfunction:  any disturbance in the functioning of an organ or body part or a disturbance in the functioning of a social group

How does homosexuality fit those?  Hint: it doesn't. 

You picked two conditions and decided that those are the criteria for 'normal' brains and organisms, and blatantly ignore or dance around anything brought up that might poke a hole in those ideas.  Homosexuality might not be ideal for a species, but it isn't something that keeps gays from functioning, it does not affect their health, it does not do much of anything except influence partner selection.  That is NOT a dysfunction according to any way that I've seen that term used.
2010-06-02 14:31:46
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85
"Dysfunction:  any disturbance in the functioning of an organ or body part or a disturbance in the functioning of a social group"

I don't understand how homosexuality doesn't fit this to a T. It is a disturbance of the social group at its most basic level. The fact that we are even having this conversation is indicative of that, even ignoring the mating consequences.

I don't know how else you would even begin to define normal if not by nature. I mean if you have any ideas be my guest, but normal is not such an absurd concept as to say it doesn't exist. People are remarkably similar, as are all species of animals, and making assertions as to what is typical considering the obvious broad trends is not ridiculous.

Just because you haven't heard dysfunction used this way doesn't mean it isn't correctly used this way. There are so many connotations assigned to these words that it prevents definition, and when that happens social stigma has grossly overstepped its bounds.
2010-06-02 14:33:24
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7034|Moscow, Russia

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disorder?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic wrote:

disorder - a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction
How does homosexuality not fit this definition? I didn't say it is good, but I didn't say it is bad either.
it doesn't fit this definition at all. homosexuality happens in nature - it is normal. it is not a disorder, it's not a dysfunction, it's not a desease - it's a state of things. sun shines, wind blows, women have secrets, people turn out to be gay.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How is this a "nasty can of worms"?
i gave you several analogies.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They don't function in one of the two most basic ways we understand humans to function on an instinctual level. It's not good or bad it just is.
soldier ants or working bees do not partake in reproductive cycle of their respective species - are they abnormal? no? then why are you so sure that reproductive function is "one of the most basic" for humans?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-02 14:37:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England
Threads like these are why DST normally turns into a flame war. It ends the thread quickly and we aren't subjected to FM prattling on for 20 pages on some minor point.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-02 14:39:33
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5437|Sydney

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Saying homosexuality is a mental disorder is stretching it a bit ... a genetic condition is more like it ...

Call it whatever you like really, you are born gay, lesbian or transexual or whatever and nothing can change that ...
I beleive people are a product of their environment AS much as they are genes.
Really? Well then given your environment, when EXACTLY did you make the conscience decision to be straight? When EXACTLY, faced with the choice to have sex with a man or a woman, did you CHOOSE to have sex with a woman, and CHOOSE to love women instead of men? I mean, ya know, based your environment and all.
^^ This.

It's been claimed by science over the years that homosexuality is a genetic thing, just like being tall or having ginger hair. How many times do you hear homosexual people say things like "...and then I realised I was gay". Not "...and then I decided to be gay", it's something that is part of who they are, whether they like it or not, whether they accept it or not.

Also, the whole brain defect thing or mental disorder thing, I put into a post that must've gotten lost amongst the din of those trying to prove others wrong:

Jaekus wrote:

People who have a mental illness at some point recognise this when it gets to an acute level, because it impacts upon their lives so severely that treatment is the only option.

I hardly think someone who's "severely" homosexual could be put into the same category at all.
In a nutshell, any typical mental/psychiatric disorder/illness has progressive stages, the more acute the symptoms the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative (hallucinations, delusions, extremes in mood, major depression and anxiety... list goes on). Someone can be very gay, and still very healthy both physically and mentally. That's why being homosexual isn't a mental disorder.

To suggest homosexuality is a genetic defect is pretty fucking offensive too, IMO. Kinda like saying "they're different, they must have something wrong with them" rather than accepting they're just different.
2010-06-02 14:39:36
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85
Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's normal. By far. I don't know how you could even say that. Being born without appendages is natural at times as well. As are many, many diseases.

For their species they are normal. Humans aren't bees. 99+% of people are physically able to reproduce.

Jaekus wrote:

In a nutshell, any typical mental/psychiatric disorder/illness has progressive stages, the more acute the symptoms the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative (hallucinations, delusions, extremes in mood, major depression and anxiety... list goes on). Someone can be very gay, and still very healthy both physically and mentally. That's why being homosexual isn't a mental disorder.
You don't have a very clear understanding of just how ambiguous the field of mental disorders is. Saying such things as "the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative".
2010-06-02 14:46:36
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85
I think this is pretty interesting.

Jaekus wrote:

To suggest homosexuality is a genetic defect is pretty fucking offensive too, IMO. Kinda like saying "they're different, they must have something wrong with them" rather than accepting they're just different.
I don't know that anybody here is unaccepting of gay people being different. That doesn't mean there isn't also something wrong with them.

But, why isn't it the other way around? Why can't you say that homosexuality is right and straight is wrong? If there is a rational argument to that effect it seems to me that would point to the idea of the two being strictly different but neither wrong on whatever level. Logically it makes sense that if there is an argument both ways it is a matter of perspective, but if there is only an argument one way and the other side is "that is offensive" it points to ignorance on the part of the second party.
2010-06-02 14:51:08
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5437|Sydney

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's normal. By far. I don't know how you could even say that. Being born without appendages is natural at times as well. As are many, many diseases.

For their species they are normal. Humans aren't bees. 99+% of people are physically able to reproduce.

Jaekus wrote:

In a nutshell, any typical mental/psychiatric disorder/illness has progressive stages, the more acute the symptoms the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative (hallucinations, delusions, extremes in mood, major depression and anxiety... list goes on). Someone can be very gay, and still very healthy both physically and mentally. That's why being homosexual isn't a mental disorder.
You don't have a very clear understanding of just how ambiguous the field of mental disorders is. Saying such things as "the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative".
I have a working understanding, and my comments are based upon talking with the people I work with and the various training we receive in the more practical aspects of mental illness.

Bipolar for example, the manic side is somewhat good, really good, but the more extreme it gets the worse it makes the person. I have a lived example of living with someone who went completely manic, after 6 months she was extremely aggressive and had a breakdown when her parents took her to hospital. So, the more acute the symptoms, the worse it gets.

And yes, mental disorders/psychiatric illnesses are kinda ambiguous, but there are some very definite symptoms needed to make a diagnosis.
2010-06-02 14:53:11
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5437|Sydney

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I think this is pretty interesting.

Jaekus wrote:

To suggest homosexuality is a genetic defect is pretty fucking offensive too, IMO. Kinda like saying "they're different, they must have something wrong with them" rather than accepting they're just different.
I don't know that anybody here is unaccepting of gay people being different. That doesn't mean there isn't also something wrong with them.

But, why isn't it the other way around? Why can't you say that homosexuality is right and straight is wrong? If there is a rational argument to that effect it seems to me that would point to the idea of the two being strictly different but neither wrong on whatever level. Logically it makes sense that if there is an argument both ways it is a matter of perspective, but if there is only an argument one way and the other side is "that is offensive" it points to ignorance on the part of the second party.
Well, you could make that argument I suppose. But what would be the point?
You could also say it's pretty normal, just not the majority of people in society are gay, and this has more pluses than most other arguments.
2010-06-02 14:53:39
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85
How could you say the same about someone with Schizophrenia for example? The more acute their disorder the happier they could be, depending on the type. They just aren't living in reality. Saying "worse" means their symptoms increase, it doesn't mean the person is necessarily not as happy as a result.

Even the symptoms used to define mental illness are ambiguous. The DSM is a pretty controversial medical text, and even it uses things like "if you have three out of these five symptoms, you're sick".

Jaekus wrote:

Well, you could make that argument I suppose. But what would be the point?
You could also say it's pretty normal, just not the majority of people in society are gay, and this has more pluses than most other arguments.
Saying it's normal when it's not is just living in a fantasy land. It's like completely ignoring race instead of acknowledging the fact that racism is still alive in America and attempting to mitigate its consequences through whatever manner you believe appropriate.

If you say homosexuality is unnatural and then point to the extensive list of unnatural things people do, well I would consider that a pretty compelling argument for the equal treatment of gays.
2010-06-02 15:01:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's normal. By far. I don't know how you could even say that. Being born without appendages is natural at times as well. As are many, many diseases.

For their species they are normal. Humans aren't bees. 99+% of people are physically able to reproduce.

Jaekus wrote:

In a nutshell, any typical mental/psychiatric disorder/illness has progressive stages, the more acute the symptoms the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative (hallucinations, delusions, extremes in mood, major depression and anxiety... list goes on). Someone can be very gay, and still very healthy both physically and mentally. That's why being homosexual isn't a mental disorder.
You don't have a very clear understanding of just how ambiguous the field of mental disorders is. Saying such things as "the more the person with the illness/disorder suffers as a result, and the results are always negative".
May not be the norm but it is without a doubt a natural occurrence.
2010-06-02 15:02:45
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85
Again, natural is in no way normal by necessity.

You guys remind me of these herbal medicine commercials.
2010-06-02 15:23:43
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7031|PNW

SenorToenails wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Homosexuality is a part of nature.  I have a hard time believing it's a 'genetic defect' or 'mental disease' because of its appearance in such a wide variety of species.
Genetic defects and mental diseases are not a part of nature?
Ah, I didn't say that.  I said that I have a hard time believing that homosexuality is a human brain defect when so many diverse species exhibit similar behavior.  FM found that some animals display epilepsy, just like humans--but do as many animals?  The article he cited only discussed canines and felines.  Similarly with the other article he mentioned.  I didn't say it was proof; I didn't imply it was proof--but then, no one has any or this wouldn't be a debate.
Maybe you didn't mean to, but it is implied. There is no logical reason to assume that if multiple species display a similar aberration that it can't be a disorder.
2010-06-02 17:03:27
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5437|Sydney

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How could you say the same about someone with Schizophrenia for example? The more acute their disorder the happier they could be, depending on the type. They just aren't living in reality. Saying "worse" means their symptoms increase, it doesn't mean the person is necessarily not as happy as a result.
I say that about schizophrenia because all the study and evidence is there, coupled with my own experiences of working with people who have schizophrenia. One of the key symptoms that go along with the delusions of schizophrenia is hearing voices and intense anxiety. The delusions become worse, the person becomes more anxious as a result, treatment is required. The main issue with schizophrenia is the inability to distinguish delusion from reality. I guess there could be exceptions to the rule but in the vast majority of people with schizophrenia, the illness affects their lives very negatively. For example, as part of my First Aid Mental Health training last week over 2 days, after much research the WHO (World Health Organisation) have stated that the level of disability of someone with acute and chronic schizophrenia is equivalent to someone with quadraplegia, ie. they can't shower, feed themselves, work, basically do anything without 24 hour care.

Even the symptoms used to define mental illness are ambiguous. The DSM is a pretty controversial medical text, and even it uses things like "if you have three out of these five symptoms, you're sick".
Well you can't diagnose a mental illness from symptoms alone, there's a lot more to it, and you need to see a psychologist/psychiatrist for a period of weeks or months before a diagnosis can be made, in most cases.

Jaekus wrote:

Well, you could make that argument I suppose. But what would be the point?
You could also say it's pretty normal, just not the majority of people in society are gay, and this has more pluses than most other arguments.
Saying it's normal when it's not is just living in a fantasy land. It's like completely ignoring race instead of acknowledging the fact that racism is still alive in America and attempting to mitigate its consequences through whatever manner you believe appropriate.
wat?

When people are asked to "define normal" they usually relate it back to their own concept of normal. If you're gay, it would be normal to you. If you're not, it would be unnatural. I'm sure the idea of heterosexuality is not normal to a lot of gay people. Just because it doesn't seem "normal" to you or I, doesn't make it not so. As for the race comments, it's more acceptance and seeing beyond someone's race, or sexuality, or gender, or mental illness and not defining people because of these things alone.

If you say homosexuality is unnatural and then point to the extensive list of unnatural things people do, well I would consider that a pretty compelling argument for the equal treatment of gays.
I find it hard to see a compelling argument against the equal treatment of gay people tbh.
2010-06-02 18:30:45
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6389|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

"Dysfunction:  any disturbance in the functioning of an organ or body part or a disturbance in the functioning of a social group"

I don't understand how homosexuality doesn't fit this to a T. It is a disturbance of the social group at its most basic level. The fact that we are even having this conversation is indicative of that, even ignoring the mating consequences.
Check out what they mean by social group.  Homosexuality does not stop interaction with the social group.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't know how else you would even begin to define normal if not by nature. I mean if you have any ideas be my guest, but normal is not such an absurd concept as to say it doesn't exist. People are remarkably similar, as are all species of animals, and making assertions as to what is typical considering the obvious broad trends is not ridiculous.
Yes, and homosexuality is observed with a significant frequency in nature...so it must be abnormal?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just because you haven't heard dysfunction used this way doesn't mean it isn't correctly used this way. There are so many connotations assigned to these words that it prevents definition, and when that happens social stigma has grossly overstepped its bounds.
And just because you use it this way does not mean it's right.  There is no 'dysfunction' here, since socialization and whatnot STILL happens!  Gays are productive members of society, just like the countless other people who do not breed.
2010-06-02 19:23:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

FM wrote:

I don't understand how homosexuality doesn't fit this to a T. It is a disturbance of the social group at its most basic level.
How do they disturb the social group exactly?
The world needs hairdressers, interior designers, soap opera actors - without gays where would we be?
Seems they have a handy niche.
Fuck Israel
2010-06-02 19:23:52
Airwolf
Latter Alcoholic
+287|6979|Scotland
let's not forget real estate
2010-06-02 19:26:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX
And steelworkers, lumberjacks etc - any trade where a bushy moustache and faux-machismo is part of the deal actually.
Fuck Israel
2010-06-02 22:06:20
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85

Jaekus wrote:

I say that about schizophrenia because all the study and evidence is there, coupled with my own experiences of working with people who have schizophrenia. One of the key symptoms that go along with the delusions of schizophrenia is hearing voices and intense anxiety. The delusions become worse, the person becomes more anxious as a result, treatment is required. The main issue with schizophrenia is the inability to distinguish delusion from reality. I guess there could be exceptions to the rule but in the vast majority of people with schizophrenia, the illness affects their lives very negatively. For example, as part of my First Aid Mental Health training last week over 2 days, after much research the WHO (World Health Organisation) have stated that the level of disability of someone with acute and chronic schizophrenia is equivalent to someone with quadraplegia, ie. they can't shower, feed themselves, work, basically do anything without 24 hour care.
It depends dramatically on the type of schizophrenia. Yes it is generally negative. But mental disorder does not automatically = unhappy.

Jaekus wrote:

wat?

When people are asked to "define normal" they usually relate it back to their own concept of normal. If you're gay, it would be normal to you. If you're not, it would be unnatural. I'm sure the idea of heterosexuality is not normal to a lot of gay people. Just because it doesn't seem "normal" to you or I, doesn't make it not so. As for the race comments, it's more acceptance and seeing beyond someone's race, or sexuality, or gender, or mental illness and not defining people because of these things alone.
Why anyone would assume they are themselves normal I have no idea. I think that is quite the false assumption. I think at the very least people understand in generalities what social norms are and where they differ from those norms. There is certainly no reason why you can't judge what is and is not normal against a natural standard.

Jaekus wrote:

I find it hard to see a compelling argument against the equal treatment of gay people tbh.
So do I. But some people don't, so you need arguments for it.
2010-06-02 22:14:19
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:

Check out what they mean by social group.  Homosexuality does not stop interaction with the social group.
I didn't say it stopped it, I said it disturbed it. As in it changed the interactions. Which it does.

SenorToenails wrote:

Yes, and homosexuality is observed with a significant frequency in nature...so it must be abnormal?
Again, just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it is normal. Lacking all your appendages is not normal, yet it happens naturally.

SenorToenails wrote:

And just because you use it this way does not mean it's right.  There is no 'dysfunction' here, since socialization and whatnot STILL happens!  Gays are productive members of society, just like the countless other people who do not breed.
How does being productive have anything to do with this? They are dysfunctional because they don't breed, and that difference changes the way society works.
2010-06-02 23:41:50
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7034|Moscow, Russia

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Again, natural is in no way normal by necessity.
really? k, wth is "normal" then?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-02 23:49:43
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7069|Nårvei

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are dysfunctional because they don't breed, and that difference changes the way society works.
But they CAN breed so that does not make them dysfunctional ... and when they do breed they have the exact same possibilities of having heterosexual or gay kids ... atleast I have yet to see a study about how gay people have a higher chance of getting gay kids ...

But lets say you are right FM, how does it change society? ... I ask because seeing as gay people always have existed the change in society was already there in the beginning and the only factor that may have changed over time is how people react when they encounter gay people ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-06-03 00:14:04
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

FM wrote:

How does being productive have anything to do with this? They are dysfunctional because they don't breed, and that difference changes the way society works.
Plenty of people don't breed, many by choice. Are you saying anyone who doesn't produce 2.4 kids is dysfunctional?
Fuck Israel
2010-06-03 00:27:57
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5437|Sydney

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I say that about schizophrenia because all the study and evidence is there, coupled with my own experiences of working with people who have schizophrenia. One of the key symptoms that go along with the delusions of schizophrenia is hearing voices and intense anxiety. The delusions become worse, the person becomes more anxious as a result, treatment is required. The main issue with schizophrenia is the inability to distinguish delusion from reality. I guess there could be exceptions to the rule but in the vast majority of people with schizophrenia, the illness affects their lives very negatively. For example, as part of my First Aid Mental Health training last week over 2 days, after much research the WHO (World Health Organisation) have stated that the level of disability of someone with acute and chronic schizophrenia is equivalent to someone with quadraplegia, ie. they can't shower, feed themselves, work, basically do anything without 24 hour care.
It depends dramatically on the type of schizophrenia. Yes it is generally negative. But mental disorder does not automatically = unhappy.
No, but in the vast majority of cases it does have a massive negative impact on people's lives, because of the dysfunction to their psyche.

Jaekus wrote:

wat?

When people are asked to "define normal" they usually relate it back to their own concept of normal. If you're gay, it would be normal to you. If you're not, it would be unnatural. I'm sure the idea of heterosexuality is not normal to a lot of gay people. Just because it doesn't seem "normal" to you or I, doesn't make it not so. As for the race comments, it's more acceptance and seeing beyond someone's race, or sexuality, or gender, or mental illness and not defining people because of these things alone.
Why anyone would assume they are themselves normal I have no idea. I think that is quite the false assumption. I think at the very least people understand in generalities what social norms are and where they differ from those norms. There is certainly no reason why you can't judge what is and is not normal against a natural standard.
But again we come back to the concept of natural, and I guess it parallels your point made about people being normal. Social norms are really just what's accepted by society at large, or at least within your peer group. So really, being gay is only "not normal" when society deems it as such.

Jaekus wrote:

I find it hard to see a compelling argument against the equal treatment of gay people tbh.
So do I. But some people don't, so you need arguments for it.
That's a good point.
2010-06-03 09:38:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6966|67.222.138.85

Shahter wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Again, natural is in no way normal by necessity.
really? k, wth is "normal" then?
This has been addressed so many times I don't care to count.

Varegg wrote:

But they CAN breed so that does not make them dysfunctional ... and when they do breed they have the exact same possibilities of having heterosexual or gay kids ... atleast I have yet to see a study about how gay people have a higher chance of getting gay kids ...
Haven't had the birds and the bees talk yet huh?

Varegg wrote:

But lets say you are right FM, how does it change society? ... I ask because seeing as gay people always have existed the change in society was already there in the beginning and the only factor that may have changed over time is how people react when they encounter gay people ...
It is a huge political issue right now, and it greatly influences the lives of a lot of straight people as well. They are different, and that changes the social dynamic. Again the fact that this has gone on to 150+ posts is indicative of this.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Plenty of people don't breed, many by choice. Are you saying anyone who doesn't produce 2.4 kids is dysfunctional?
Anyone who doesn't breed by choice is dysfunctional.

Jaekus wrote:

But again we come back to the concept of natural, and I guess it parallels your point made about people being normal. Social norms are really just what's accepted by society at large, or at least within your peer group. So really, being gay is only "not normal" when society deems it as such.
...and when you compare it against nature. That really is a pretty objective standard. The only subjective part of it is considering whether or not it is an appropriate standard, but in lieu of a better one I don't see why not.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard