Homosexuality: A Mental Disorder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dispector
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Polaris said:
What are the obvious facts?

Natural law is constantly being argued as of what actually is part of it and what is not part of it. Ayn Rand said many things were part of the natural law that the church would disagree with. yet those ideas are present in many cultures.

Also Natural Law is a theory. There are many more theories you can base your “truth on” Its just the Catholic churches favorite one because they can make it up as they go. Afterall no one has actually seen it and even many in the church believe it cant be reached by reason alone because of original sin. Only divine revalation could help you to understand it. Yet even then we still have messed it up for a long time and probably will continue to mess it up.

Marriage is part of Natural law, yes it exists in many cultures, but your statement about sex being outside of Marriage being against natural law is wrong. It is expected, accepted, and even in some cultures revered, without guilt or concept of sin. It is not against natural law to have sex outside of marriage, if we want to look at the Majority of all time and all cultures, including early Judiasm not just your small christian world reference.

God never allowed things against Natural Law, he just loosened divine law. Sex outside of marriage, concubiange and even incest goes against divine law not natural law.
Click to expand...
Ayn Rand, who was an Objectivist and athesit, is not an authority on which you should base any Christian idea.

As for the rest, much of what you say, such as Natural Law being a “theory” is not consistent with Church teachings. Your argument is still illogical. You will always be able to point to depraved individuals and even cultures. Using sin as an example that Church teachings about morality are wrong is silly.

But if you say this enough times, you may even believe it.

Just because you want something that is immoral to be suddenly okay does not make it okay.
 
Seatuck said:
It is a disorder of multiple areas. Spiritual, emotional, mental and physical.

www.narth.com
Click to expand...
I hesitate to trust NARTH in the slightest when it comes to information and treatment. I was treated by doctors who claimed to be part of narth and I ended up having electroshock and sound aversion therapies.

I now can no longer be touched by males, including my father and my brothers, without feeling a phantom electric shock of pain flashed through my body and a nonexistant thunderclap shuddering in my ears.

I am more broken now than beforehand thanks to this organization.

Then when it was determined that I had genetic abnormalities (Intersexism) they refused to treat me anymore and won’t even discuss my issues with how I was treated. I am a nobody to them.
 
Dispector said:
I have heard recently that more and more people are accepting homosexuality as a “mental disorder” of sorts. What evidence is there to prove this?

I, of course, disagree.

Respectfully,
Mark

Touch gloves and keep it clean
Click to expand...
Well my sociology textbook says that there is evidence of mental I guess disorder. There is actually studies that have found that straight men and gay men actually have differences in the brain, certain parts are different sizes. The part that affects hormones and what not.
 
BryPGuy89 said:
Well my sociology textbook says that there is evidence of mental I guess disorder. There is actually studies that have found that straight men and gay men actually have differences in the brain, certain parts are different sizes. The part that affects hormones and what not.
Click to expand...
I have heard about this study as well. However, being that it is just one study using it as a definitive proof of homosexuality as a genetic trait would be premature.

Another reason why I disagree with the “genetic” disorder as an answer to homosexuality is that I’ve seen several people that claimed to be homosexual switch between states of homosexuality and heterosexuality… one moment claiming they were born gay and the next moment saying they are no longer interested in people of the same sex. It’s the swinging back and forth between homosexuality and heterosexuality that makes the “genetic” argument questionable.

Respectfully,
Mark
 
Dispector said:
I have heard about this study as well. However, being that it is just one study using it as a definitive proof of homosexuality as a genetic trait would be premature.

Another reason why I disagree with the “genetic” disorder as an answer to homosexuality is that I’ve seen several people that claimed to be homosexual switch between states of homosexuality and heterosexuality… one moment claiming they were born gay and the next moment saying they are no longer interested in people of the same sex. It’s the swinging back and forth between homosexuality and heterosexuality that makes the “genetic” argument questionable.

Respectfully,
Mark
Click to expand...
I dont know what to think because this may be one study claiming genetics but my textbok mentioned many more with results also promoting genetic causes, it was careful not to claim that as definite it gave three reasons for homosexuality and supporting arguments, the two major were nature and nurture. The book basicall came to the conclsion that it most likely is a combination of both.
The book aslo covered the issue of identity and that our society continually makes it harder and harder to find our sexual identities and roles in society, thus leading more and more young people to question themselves and explore more into other roles and loose borders between what is right and wrong.
 
Without trying to oversimplify a very complex issue, I would be inclined to say that same sex attraction (SSA) is an emotional disorder. From my own experience, I would not say that genetics plays a substantial role in determining an aberrant sexual preference. And although most homosexuals I know do not consciously produce/choose feelings of SSA, there are many people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior who feel no predisposition to that behavior.

SSA is a difficult thing, but people can and do overcome it. I’m sure that more people embrace their homosexual “identity” than try to overcome it, but many do find cures/solutions to SSA.

As this is a very complex issue, there are many theories as to how to treat SSA (and of course there are many who believe it is not treatable). Below are links to groups with a few different perspectives: secular, evangelical, and Catholic.

couragerc.net/
exodus-international.org/
narth.com/
peoplecanchange.com/
 
GIMJ said:
Without trying to oversimplify a very complex issue, I would be inclined to say that same sex attraction (SSA) is an emotional disorder. From my own experience, I would not say that genetics plays a substantial role in determining an aberrant sexual preference. And although most homosexuals I know do not consciously produce/choose feelings of SSA, there are many people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior who feel no predisposition to that behavior.

SSA is a difficult thing, but people can and do overcome it. I’m sure that more people embrace their homosexual “identity” than try to overcome it, but many do find cures/solutions to SSA.

As this is a very complex issue, there are many theories as to how to treat SSA (and of course there are many who believe it is not treatable). Below are links to groups with a few different perspectives: secular, evangelical, and Catholic.

couragerc.net/
exodus-international.org/
narth.com/
peoplecanchange.com/
Click to expand...
True there is more to it then just a simple answer.
 
There’s been studies that show that homosexual men’s cerebellum’s resemble that of women (they are smaller), and that homosexual womens resemble mens (larger). It is unknown whether this is genetic or it has some origin in an abnormal hormonal balance during development… Its obviouse that homosexual people don’t ‘choose’ their desires, sure they choose their actions, but there’s no way that anyway ‘heterosexual’ man could choose to be attracted to other men :eek: - the thought of it is just so disgusting.
 
cynic said:
There’s been studies that show that homosexual men’s cerebellum’s resemble that of women (they are smaller), and that homosexual womens resemble mens (larger). It is unknown whether this is genetic or it has some origin in an abnormal hormonal balance during development… Its obviouse that homosexual people don’t ‘choose’ their desires, sure they choose their actions, but there’s no way that anyway ‘heterosexual’ man could choose to be attracted to other men :eek: - the thought of it is just so disgusting.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard about the men, but I never heard about women… I have heard about certain parts of gay men’s brains being smaller, but they usually say that it isnt so for women.
 
BryPGuy89 said:
True there is more to it then just a simple answer.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. And as you mentioned in your textbook, I believe it is a combination of Nature and Nurture. However, I don’t believe it is something which is impossible to overcome.

Respectfully,
Mark
 
Dispector said:
I completely agree. And as you mentioned in your textbook, I believe it is a combination of Nature and Nurture. However, I don’t believe it is something which is impossible to overcome.

Respectfully,
Mark
Click to expand...
I have a half brother who is homosexual. He denied it for many years. When he finally told me, I was not surprised in the least. The family knew this from the time he was a very young boy. No, we did not influence him by this knowledge, because he did not spend a lot of time with us growing up, as he did not live with us. His two brothers are heterosexual. I don’t think he had a cholice and I don’t think he can change. However, I believe he has a choice not to act on his attraction, just as all of us have a choice not to act upon our sexual desires outside of marriage.

I do not think homosexuality is “natural”, in that it acts outside of the natural procreative function of sex, but I think “nature” plays a part in it often, as some people apparently are born this way. But we all have free will when it comes to sin.
 
BryPGuy89 said:
I dont know what to think because this may be one study claiming genetics but my textbok mentioned many more with results also promoting genetic causes, it was careful not to claim that as definite it gave three reasons for homosexuality and supporting arguments, the two major were nature and nurture. The book basicall came to the conclsion that it most likely is a combination of both.
The book aslo covered the issue of identity and that our society continually makes it harder and harder to find our sexual identities and roles in society, thus leading more and more young people to question themselves and explore more into other roles and loose borders between what is right and wrong.
Click to expand...
Unless your book sourced peer reviwed studies what you read was merely the opinion of the Authors.
 
A mental disorder implies that one cannot function without some sort of treatment. Homosexuals, despite sinful behavior, were able to show that they could function in society without treatment. This is why it is no longer a mental disorder.
 
goofyjim said:
A mental disorder implies that one cannot function without some sort of treatment. Homosexuals, despite sinful behavior, were able to show that they could function in society without treatment. This is why it is no longer a mental disorder.
Click to expand...
I believe both your premise and conclusion are incorrect.

Many people have varying degrees of untreated mental disorders, depressions being the most common, yet they can function. It is simply not as bad in some people as it is in others. Thus your premise is incorrect.

Your conclusion is incorrect because for a homosexual to fully participate in marriage, they would need to undergo (some as yet developed) treatment to overcome their same-sex attraction and develop opposite-sex attraction.

So a homosexual can generally function in society, but without treatment, they cannot participate in the married state.

Homosexual and heterosexual attraction can be so powerful that the person becomes some type of sexual predator. Then they cannot function in society.
 
PauloFreire2 said:
I consider homosexuality natural and just one of many variations of human sexuality. It’s been unfairly anathematized by many societies and religions. Nonetheless, it’s a function of nature.
Click to expand...
What “function of nature” does this behavior fulfill, if I may ask?
 
CB_Catholic said:
I have a half brother who is homosexual. He denied it for many years. When he finally told me, I was not surprised in the least. The family knew this from the time he was a very young boy. No, we did not influence him by this knowledge, because he did not spend a lot of time with us growing up, as he did not live with us. His two brothers are heterosexual. I don’t think he had a cholice and I don’t think he can change. However, I believe he has a choice not to act on his attraction, just as all of us have a choice not to act upon our sexual desires outside of marriage.

I do not think homosexuality is “natural”, in that it acts outside of the natural procreative function of sex, but I think “nature” plays a part in it often, as some people apparently are born this way. But we all have free will when it comes to sin.
Click to expand...
You make a very good point here. It’s possible there could be varying degrees of causes due to nature or nurture. Regardless, as you mentioned, they can still choose not to act upon their homosexual desires.

Respectfully,
Mark
 
In all these thoughts and considerations, we must not forget that there is a whole spectrum in the causes and motives behind human behavior.

What is disgusting or horrifying for one person is distasteful to another, unattractive to another, evokes curiosity in another and is a great pastime to yet another.

Consider sky-diving. How many of us would strap a sheet to our back and jump out of a perfectly good airplane? Are there genetic differences at play here that lead some to such risky behavior while deterring others? Who knows?

But we do know that people who do engage in sky-diving do so of their own free will.

But this analogy is not perfect, Sky-diving, unlike homosexuality, is not a sinful pursuit. And sky-diving (which I, as an airplane pilot, would never do) is less risky to the physical health of the participants than homosexual activity is, particularly for males.
 
If homosexuality is genetic, how can a genetic trait that depends on the reproductive process pass itself down from generation to generation?

If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true and the human race is 200,000 years old, wouldn’t those with the “gay gene” naturally not reproduce and therefore make the “gay gene” drop out of the gene pool?

And, if it’s genetic, wouldn’t encouraging people to come out of the closet and live the gay lifestyle lessen the chances of there being a gay gene in the future?

I think it is a mental disorder more than anything else.

Calling it a disorder is not cruel. I too am disordered, I have A.D.D.
 
The thing that really taints, or dogs, this question is the hardball, power politics that gay activists used in the 70s in forcing the APA revision of the definition of homosexuality.

It makes people second guess the whole topic: if homosexuality is genetic, then why the extreme tactics to force the definition upon a professional scientific group?

Read “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” by Jeffrey Satinover. No, don’t jump ahead of yourself and skim Amazon reviews; just get the book from the library and judge for yourself. An interesting recent history of a controversial topic. . . in which dissenting views all too often, get “acted up” upon and squashed!

Pity our poor democratic processes!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top