Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights?

[Londoner]

Just being a devil’s advocate, what exactly makes bestiality a disorder?

And likewise, what exactly is it about eating disorder that makes it a mental illness?

In both cases, the basic reason for defining something as a disorder is that it causes the sufferer psychological distress and a risk of physical harm (and, in some instances, a risk of harm to others).

It is self-evident that a person who suffers from an eating disorder is suffering from a mental illness. If a person is starving himself or bingeing, pretending to eat more or less than he actually does, becoming dangerously overweight or underweight, and is, probably inevitably, depressed, anxious, and suffering from low self-esteem, he is mentally ill.

Sexual activity between a human and a non-human animal will very probably risk harm to the human, the non-human, or both. The non-human, by definition, cannot consent to sex with a human. It is very unlikely that somebody would be able to experience a sexual attraction towards non-human animals without being caused a degree of distress.

 

[ratio1]

So in your opinion, someone who has unwanted same sex attraction and has psychological distress as a result of it then you are happy to call that a disorder?

Continuing on the thought experiment on bestiality, let’s say one day science has advanced so much that we can know what animals think and therefore animals can give consent. Then if both the human person and animal enjoy the sexual activity then you are happy to not label it as a disorder?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

cannot consent

Since when is consent necessary for a non-human? It isn’t applied consistently and they have limited protections.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It depends on whether you believe that an individual has a sort of sovereignty to do what they want or not, or if individual rights should be trumped for the higher good. I tend to go for the latter option, so I would avoid putting myself in a situation where I would be forced to do such actions.

 

[Wozza]

So in your opinion, someone who has unwanted same sex attraction and has psychological distress as a result of it then you are happy to call that a disorder?

Continuing on the thought experiment on bestiality, let’s say one day science has advanced so much that we can know what animals think and therefore animals can give consent. Then if both the human person and animal enjoy the sexual activity then you are happy to not label it as a disorder?

You cannot make love to a young person because they are incapable of giving informed consent. Just because a young boy says it’s ok doesn’t mean to say it’s ok. So what you are asking is would it be ok to have sex with an animal if that animal had the same mental faculties as an adult.

Now I think we’re in the realms of science fiction where humans make love to non humans and aliens. It’s something of a tortured route in order to claim same sex disordered, don’t you think?

 

[Darryl_B]

Wow, For a moment there the big question, for Americans at least, regarding religious freedom, and rights in general, got sidetracked with personal agendas.

 

[o_mlly]

I think you are confusing two (or perhaps more) things. Certainly you can say that homosexual activity is regarded as being “disordered” in the terminology used by Catholic moral philosophers. You cannot, however, say that the conditions of being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer are themselves disorders. Homosexuality was formerly believed to be a disorder. Being transgender is not a disorder. Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, is a disorder, although the term “gender identity disorder” is no longer used. Since you mention it, zoophilia is a disorder.

It appears you are drinking Wazoo’s Kool-Aid and confusing the determination of an act as good or evil and the culpability of the actor as only one thought process. One can judge the morality of the act independent of any particular actor. The particulars of the actor determine culpability, sometimes eliminating all responsibility. But even if so, the act remains evil.

Catholic morality teaches homosexual acts are disordered. However, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability” (CCC#2252).

 

[ratio1]

I’m simply using the common well accepted method in philosophy ie thought experiements to test the underlying principles. I’m just interested in a deeper level of what people really think beneath the surface. But if people in this forum here don’t like it, that’s fine. I’ll just drop it. I didn’t mean to cause offence to anyone.

 

[o_mlly]

Jane: I went to bed with my friend. I’m confused. I need some guidance.
…

W: Here’s some from someone who is a Anglican: ‘Sorry, can’t help you. Do what you think is best. We’re still confused on that homosexuality thing. Read our report and good luck.’
Jane: Gee, thanks. I feel like I could find some comfort within that religion.

Jane looks up the last Anglican pronouncement on human sexuality.

https://www.anglicancommunion.org/r...-to-full-humanity/section-i10-human-sexuality

Clearly some expressions of sexuality are inherently contrary to the Christian way and are sinful. Such unacceptable expression of sexuality include promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, paedophilia, predatory sexual behaviour, and sadomasochism (all of which may be heterosexual and homosexual), adultery, violence against wives, and female circumcision.

Jane: ‘Gee, I don’t see homosexuality listed as sinful so I guess I’m OK at least until the next meeting.’

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

profitability of godliness (eg, heterosexuality)

Heterosexuality isn’t always godly and celibacy of a homosexual is probably more godly than a married heterosexual.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Here is the actual text of the proposed legislation (much more useful than reading other folks interpretation)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

I do not read anything in this legislation that, if passed, would impinge on my or others ability to practice our religious faith.

In my life, discrimination against me because of my disability is like a buzzing sound that is always there, sometimes soft and sometimes loud. This legislation would maybe make that buzz just a little less prevalent.

In fact, the same legislation that protects me from discrimination in housing, hiring, etc because I am Catholic is simply extended to those of us with disabilities and to LGBTQ folks:

“Sections 1101(b), 1106, and 1107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall apply to this title except that for purposes of that application, a reference in that section 1106 to ‘race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin’ shall be considered to be a reference to ‘race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability’.”.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Jane: I went to bed with my friend. I’m confused. I need some guidance.
…

W: Here’s some from someone who is a Anglican: ‘Sorry, can’t help you. Do what you think is best. We’re still confused on that homosexuality thing. Read our report and good luck.’
Jane: Gee, thanks. I feel like I could find some comfort within that religion.

Jane looks up the last Anglican pronouncement on human sexuality.

https://www.anglicancommunion.org/r...-to-full-humanity/section-i10-human-sexuality

Clearly some expressions of sexuality are inherently contrary to the Christian way and are sinful. Such unacceptable expression of sexuality include promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, paedophilia, predatory sexual behaviour, and sadomasochism (all of which may be heterosexual and homosexual), adultery, violence against wives, and female circumcision.

Jane: ‘Gee, I don’t see homosexuality listed as sinful so I guess I’m OK at least until the next meeting.’

Not sure why you are posting Anglican views. We were discussing your specific views that gay sex is equivalent to bestiality.

 

[o_mlly]

Not sure why you are posting Anglican views.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

No, we’re discussing “Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights.”

Your fixation on discussing animal-human sex, as measured in the number of posts by Wozza on that disordered act, may indicate a mental disorder. I checked your Religious affiliation only to see if that sect considered the act moral or not. Learned a lot.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Not sure why you are posting Anglican views.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

No, we’re discussing “Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights.”

Your fixation on discussing animal-human sex, as measured in the number of posts by Wozza on that disordered act, may indicate a mental disorder. I checked your Religious affiliation only to see if that sect considered the act moral or not. Learned a lot.

The number of responses in regard to bestiality I have madei in this thread is only in response to your statement that two women having sex is the equivalent of someone having sex with an animal.

Your turn.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

He says he’s an athiest on other threads, so it is likely he forgot to change that part on his profile.

On a different note, I don’t think you meant that two were equivalent, but rather have certain similarity, but could you clarify?

 

[chessnerd321]

Experiencing sexual attraction to an adult human of the same sex as oneself is not a mental illness.

This might make massive waves, but let me start by saying I don’t necessarily believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder. BUT I think it’s quite naive to say “it’s no longer in the dsm-5, so it’s not a disorder”.

Even my psychology professor happily admited that what’s considered a mental disorder is culturally relative. For example, one could imagine a culture in which washing one’s hands 50 times a day in bleach is a normal action. That doesn’t mean it’s less detrimental, but it would no longer be considered disordered.

So by the meer fact of homosexuality being accepted in society, it’s not considered a mental disorder. That in no way automatically makes it healthy or fine. If you don’t agree with me on that, have a look at the incidence of new cases of AIDS in the gay population. EVEN TO THIS DAY.

 

[rossum]

If you don’t agree with me on that, have a look at the incidence of new cases of AIDS in the gay population.

Erm… I suspect you meant to say “the male gay population” there. HIV rates are lower for lesbians than for heterosexuals (male or female) and male homosexuals.

The argument from disease is not a good one. Homosexuals have lower rates of pregnancy-related problems, such as pre-eclampsia, for example.

And we all know that God created AIDS because He does not like haemophiliacs. Are the JWs right about blood transfusions?

 

[Londoner]

Even my psychology professor happily admited that what’s considered a mental disorder is culturally relative . For example, one could imagine a culture in which washing one’s hands 50 times a day in bleach is a normal action.

I’m not sure that washing one’s hands in bleach 50 times per day is a good example, but I take your point. When a Pentecostal Christian says that he has received a prophecy, sometimes involving detailed visions of supposed future events, it can be explained by his religious beliefs, whereas if somebody without those religious beliefs reported receiving the same kinds of visions we would probably assume that psychosis was involved. Or Shia Muslims who flagellate themselves (quite horrifyingly) during Ashura—their behaviour looks pretty crazy, but they are probably not mentally ill. So, yes, the fact that homosexuality is no longer illegal and is no longer socially proscribed probably does contribute to the belief that it is not a mental disorder. On the other hand, even when it was illegal and socially proscribed, it was remarkably common, generally caused no harm to those involved, and won the advocacy of some persuasive voices, e.g. E.M. Forster.

That in no way automatically makes it healthy or fine. If you don’t agree with me on that, have a look at the incidence of new cases of AIDS in the gay population. EVEN TO THIS DAY.

The fact that HIV infections are more common among gay and bisexual men than among some other groups does not mean that homosexual activity is in itself unhealthy. I suppose it tells us that having unprotected sex with a partner one doesn’t know particularly well isn’t a great idea if one wants to be cautious about STIs. HIV is also disproportionately common among black African people, so, following your logic, you could say that having sex with black African people is also somewhat unhealthy. The fact is, people contract HIV in lots of ways: heterosexual sex, prostitution, sharing needles, being treated with contaminated blood, eating chimpanzees (probably how humans were first infected with HIV). Two uninfected men in a monogamous relationship have a negligible risk of HIV infection (e.g. one of them could contract it through contaminated blood), whereas heterosexuals who have a lot of different partners will be at a much greater risk. HIV infection is very low among lesbians, so I guess you’d have to say that that is a very safe activity.

Since when is consent necessary for a non-human? It isn’t applied consistently and they have limited protections.

In the context of having sex with animals it seems relevant that one cannot have a mutually loving sexual relationship with an animal. The fact that a pig does not consent to be made into sausages does not mean that it is any more normal or natural to want to enter into a sexual relationship with a pig. In the context of sex, the ability to express sexuality in the context of a mutually consensual relationship would seem to be a basic criterion for something being healthy.

 

[Londoner]

So in your opinion, someone who has unwanted same sex attraction and has psychological distress as a result of it then you are happy to call that a disorder?

I would say that that person has other mental health issues arising from their inability to deal with their sexual orientation, which is fairly common. However, this is not normally a permanent condition. There is nothing intrinsic to homosexuality to mean that somebody who is gay or bisexual will necessarily experience lifelong distress.

Continuing on the thought experiment on bestiality, let’s say one day science has advanced so much that we can know what animals think and therefore animals can give consent. Then if both the human person and animal enjoy the sexual activity then you are happy to not label it as a disorder?

As someone else has already said, that is straying beyond the idea of a thought experiment and into the realms of science fiction. It seems so unlikely that we will ever discover that non-human animals actually want to have sex with humans that I am not sure why we would want to consider it, even hypothetically. There would also be other reasons not to have sex with animals, such as the risk of serious physical harm to one or both parties and the likely detrimental impact on the individual’s relationships with other humans and his or her place in society.

 

[KMC]

In both cases, the basic reason for defining something as a disorder is that it causes the sufferer psychological distress and a risk of physical harm (and, in some instances, a risk of harm to others).

Just a point of clarification. There is some “talking across each other” going on. The Catholic use of disordered is different from the psychological use of the term, and need to be kept separate. Perhaps the clearest way I have heard the Catholic definition explained is this: men and women are ordered for each other. They are complimentary as evidenced by the design of their bodies. All other combinations (man/man, woman/woman, man/man/woman, etc) are disordered.

Peace.