Homosexuality-->Unnatural-->Wrong (moral, moral, God, religion)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Angama

Very interesting. You wouldn't have a source handy, would you?

AA

Actually, I know about it because I have a couple of friends who are professional psychiatrists, and one of them actually agrees that homosexuality should be considered a disorder.

I did a quick google search and what I found was mostly sights by conservatives who are claiming that the diagnosis got dropped in the first place because of liberal pressure and are in favor of changing the diagnosis back. I couldn't find anything from a neutral site, independant od the APA, but granted other people's ideas of what is neutral may vary.

The history of the thing is that in both DSM-I and DSM-II, homosexuality was defined as a psychological disorder. (Remember, the DSM is a manual of symptoms and guidelines by which clinicians decide whether someone has a psychological disorder or not.) In DSM-III, the APA changed its criteria to say that behaviors that are not "normal" are not necessarily psychological disorders. That to qualify as a disorder, it must 1) cause the person long-term stress; and 2) interfere with social function. Conservatives point out that by these criteria, other things like S&M wouldn't be considered disorders either.

Wikipedia has a discussion of the history of the DSM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV

And this webpage, albeit with an obvious bias that I don't share, discusses the pov of those who favor reinstatement:
http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html

Here's the APA's current stance:
http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by lilithu

That to qualify as a disorder, it must 1) cause the person long-term stress; and 2) interfere with social function.

I think by this criteria, i can declare society a disorder.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

I think by this criteria, i can declare society a disorder.

Well, that is one logical problem with using criteria that are relative instead of absolute. It's the classic dilemma between "conservative" and "liberal", whether it be religion, politics, or psychological diagnoses. If you use an external, absolute standard the question is who gets to decide the standard and why should the views of the majority be imposed upon the minority? If you use an internal, relative standard, the question is how do you say anything definative about anything? Does the minority always get to veto the majority? Both views have merits and both views have flaws.

[gordon]

Homosexuality is essentially abnormal. It's thought of as unnatural, and it's not what God said he wanted. He made us to reproduce and correct me if I'm wrong, a male and a male cannot create offspring. Nevermind though, some people choose to be this way. There is help available to persuade one to make the right decision regarding their sexuality. However if that person is determined enough to engage in certain acts with the same gender then there's little that can be done for them, because at the moment, it is still legal. The trouble is it's a much more difficult illness to treat than most because it is primarily a psychological condition. One thing is that people should try not to make homosexuals feel inferior to others. I hope you will find this thread of use.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by robtex

It is impossible to keep the arguement religous free. There is no secular argument against homosexulaity. Only religious ones. You can dance around the subject pro and con but at the heart of the matter is a god full of vengence and spite.

Rob,

I really don't think that you are right about this. Do you mean to say that there is no one on earth who has ever argued against homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Secular sexual ethics has been with humanity for quite a while, and even the concept of homosexuality is very new.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Nothing can be unnatural. Everything is natural.

Is it natural to put your hand in a blender or to drink gasoline?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Rob,

I really don't think that you are right about this. Do you mean to say that there is no one on earth who has ever argued against homosexuality for non-religious reasons? Secular sexual ethics has been with humanity for quite a while, and even the concept of homosexuality is very new.

In European law it was illegal until the last few decades. Same thing in most of the states of the United States.
The statute was usually based on the fact that it was a challenge to the social order and public immorality.

The whole furor, of course, is because western societies have this thing about thinking that "love" in religious text has everything to do with "eros", rather than "agape".

Romanctic love and the garbage and baggage attached to it is a HUUUUUUGE impediment to the advancement of western civilization.

Regards,
Scott

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

... and even the concept of homosexuality is very new

Did Moses put the "don't be a ***" clause into the OT just on the off chance that men might spontaneously start screwing each other in the distant future? Please explain what you mean by this.

Is it natural to put your hand in a blender or to drink gasoline?

For once, darkdale's said something sensible. You could ask leamings if it's natural to drown themselves en masse every couple years. Let's not confuse what's natural with what's just a shitty idea.