Homosexuality as a Perversion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Captain_America
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Captain_America

Guest
If you’ve read the famous essay “Defining Deviancy Down” you can recognize that the APA in 1973 did the same thing with homosexuality: changing the definition of something is a matter with political consequences.

So in 2013, we are supposed to believe it is “scientific” to apprise homosexual actions are normal.

I’m missing out here; I’m missing something. These actions are done by a tiny fraction of the human population, and they are clearly not in conformity with the natural order of things. They also appear to be linked to other factors as well; other psychological pressures. While there is some very modest evidence to show a biological base or biological possibility of developing this behavior, this doesn’t affect things.

How can this be called “scientific”?

My guess is that in 1973, enough people on the APA board decided to give it a shot and see whether normative social pressures were creating the negatives associated with homosexual behavior. . . they did an experiment.
 
This is a excellent view into exactly what was going on at the convention, as well as the why and how of the removal of homosexuality as a diagnosis from the DSM. It’s an NPR interview with the granddaughter of the president-elect of the APA who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the DSM at the 1973 convention. Science had absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
Captain_America said:
These actions are done by a tiny fraction of the human population,
Click to expand...
Blue eyes and left handedness also apply to a small fraction of the human population, as does being Icelandic. Merely being in a minority does not make something a perversion.
and they are clearly not in conformity with the natural order of things.
Click to expand...
A great many different things are “in conformity with the natural order,” some good some bad. We can find excellent care of the young in nature and we can find complete neglect of the young in nature. We can find faithfulness in a pair bond and we can find promiscuity. Some species even have the female eat the male after he has fertilised her eggs. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. Merely because something occurs as part of the “natural order” does not make it either good or bad. We can observe both so we cannot draw conclusions.

rossum
 
rossum said:
A great many different things are “in conformity with the natural order,” some good some bad. We can find excellent care of the young in nature and we can find complete neglect of the young in nature. We can find faithfulness in a pair bond and we can find promiscuity. Some species even have the female eat the male after he has fertilised her eggs. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. Merely because something occurs as part of the “natural order” does not make it either good or bad. We can observe both so we cannot draw conclusions.
Click to expand...
When we examine the anatomy of male and female humans, it is quite clear that the reproductive organs are specifically designed - whether by God, blind evolution, or the Great Green Arkleseizure - to fit together and serve a very specific purpose that is only accomplished when combined.
 
A picture can be worth a thousand words.

Homosexual activist taunts Christians gathered near US Supreme Court building during “gay marriage” arguments.

 
rossum said:
Blue eyes and left handedness also apply to a small fraction of the human population, as does being Icelandic. Merely being in a minority does not make something a perversion.

A great many different things are “in conformity with the natural order,” some good some bad. We can find excellent care of the young in nature and we can find complete neglect of the young in nature. We can find faithfulness in a pair bond and we can find promiscuity. Some species even have the female eat the male after he has fertilised her eggs. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. Merely because something occurs as part of the “natural order” does not make it either good or bad. We can observe both so we cannot draw conclusions.

rossum
Click to expand...
I disagree with your statement that both homosexualoty and heterosexuality occur in nature. If that were true you would find homosexuality Im EVERY culture and civilization I’m the world and at similar rates and that doesn’t happen. Homosexuality OS practically unexistant in some countries and cultures, particularly those that are isolated from American/european culture. It has always been linked to specific cultures, even today it OS a phenomenon mainly in North America and Europe which had to be pushed into other countries, and even in other countries where it has been pushed it rarely happens. Of something is natural then happens everywhere, if a conduct only happens in certain places but doesn’t happen in other places that had no contact with the places that said conduct is happening, then is merely cultural.
 
rossum said:
…A great many different things are “in conformity with the natural order,” some good some bad. We can find excellent care of the young in nature and we can find complete neglect of the young in nature. We can find faithfulness in a pair bond and we can find promiscuity. Some species even have the female eat the male after he has fertilised her eggs. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. Merely because something occurs as part of the “natural order” does not make it either good or bad. We can observe both so we cannot draw conclusions.

rossum
Click to expand...
I think you do not understand the difference between natural law and the laws of nature.
 
rossum said:
Blue eyes and left handedness also apply to a small fraction of the human population, as does being Icelandic. Merely being in a minority does not make something a perversion.

A great many different things are “in conformity with the natural order,” some good some bad. We can find excellent care of the young in nature and we can find complete neglect of the young in nature. We can find faithfulness in a pair bond and we can find promiscuity. Some species even have the female eat the male after he has fertilised her eggs. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. Merely because something occurs as part of the “natural order” does not make it either good or bad. We can observe both so we cannot draw conclusions.

rossum
Click to expand...
Blue eyes and left handedness are not willed occurrences and do not have anything to do with behavior.

The thread title and the OP raised for discussion homosexuality as a perversion. Perversion is associated with behavior and the element of will in humans, with will (and sense of right and wrong) not manifest in other species. Studies of same sex animal pairing displaying supposed signs of homosexual behavior are suspect, largely touted as “evidence” of its naturalness, setting aside socialization and need for dominance as explanation.

Incidentally, “homosexual” behavior in bonobos is accordingly the closest to human homosexuality; yet, there is no evidence or recorded observation that they (male and male bonobos, or female and female bonobos) perform the homosexual act to completion.
,
 
St_Francis said:
I think you do not understand the difference between natural law and the laws of nature.
Click to expand...
The “Laws of Nature” are what we observe in nature. “Natural Law” is what Catholics (and it varies between Catholics) decide they want to use from nature. It allows them to pick and choose among examples from nature to suit their current argument.

For obvious reasons, I do not accept “Natural Law” arguments. For the reasons I stated I do not see the “Law of Nature” as a good moral guide.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Blue eyes and left handedness also apply to a small fraction of the human population, as does being Icelandic. Merely being in a minority does not make something a perversion.

A great many different things are “in conformity with the natural order,” some good some bad. We can find excellent care of the young in nature and we can find complete neglect of the young in nature. We can find faithfulness in a pair bond and we can find promiscuity. Some species even have the female eat the male after he has fertilised her eggs. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. Merely because something occurs as part of the “natural order” does not make it either good or bad. We can observe both so we cannot draw conclusions.

rossum
Click to expand...
Homosexual desire is unnatural. It contradicts man’s nature.
 
I was wondering if this thread is really about psychiatric diagnoses related to homosexuality, or scientific understanding of homosexuality. I think that’s how it started, but honestly I can’t tell where Captain America was heading with his original post.

I have nothing to say about that, but I did want to take this opportunity to gently remind everyone that the church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” (yeah, it really says that right there in the catechism), and of course Jesus commanded us to love one another.
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Blue eyes and left handedness are not willed occurrences and do not have anything to do with behavior. …
,
Click to expand...
Just wanted to clarify something; homosexual tendencies or desires are usually not willed; acting on those desires is another issue.

I know you may have meant this originally, but I feel it is an important difference that needs to be addressed.
 
rossum said:
Homosexual desire exists in nature, hence it is natural.

rossum
Click to expand...
As was stated previously, there is a difference between the laws of nature, that through biology and complex neurochemistry may make a person or animal have homosexual tendencies, and what natural order is, the processes which make a species advance.
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Blue eyes and left handedness are not willed occurrences and do not have anything to do with behavior.
Click to expand...
Left handedness does impact on behaviour, such as what hand you write with, and being Icelandic is a willed occurrence.

Merely being in a minority or being willed does not suffice to make something a perversion. Virginity in adults is a minority condition and is willed…

rossum
 
rossum said:
Homosexual desire exists in nature, hence it is natural.
Click to expand...
Original sin exists in the world, but it wasn’t created by God. Homosexual attraction is disordered because it’s part of how humanity became disordered through original sin. And we can know that homosexual attraction is not natural by just taking a look at how the male and female bodies are made to complement each other. When a husband and his wife join together in the marital embrace the two literally become one flesh. And when a baby is conceived between them the two becoming one flesh becomes even more literal.
 
Originally Posted by rossum View Post
Homosexual desire exists in nature, hence it is natural.

rossum

while homosexual acts do occur in nature animals are not homosexual, merely opportunistic. animals don’t have morals and don’t care where they get sex as long as they do when they get the opportunity. humans however, have morals and a tendency to care about where they get sex. humans can resist base desires. humans can reason. humans have innate morality born of the fact that God placed it in us. we are God’s creation in His image. homosexuality is not only unnatural, it is illogical and many homosexuals, male and female, act out in highly inappropriate manners that could be seen as not just deviant but psychologically disparate from the mainstream.
 
livingwordunity said:
Original sin exists in the world, but it wasn’t created by God.
Click to expand...
Two points. First, if God didn’t create Original Sin and Original Sin exists, then there is at least one other creator besides God. God is not the only creator, but one among two (or more) creators.

Second, if you look at the top right of my posts, you will see that I am Buddhist. Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. Hence arguing about any sin, including Original Sin, is irrelevant to me. Sin does not exist in Buddhism.

rossum
 
donna369 said:
while homosexual acts do occur in nature animals are not homosexual, merely opportunistic. animals don’t have morals and don’t care where they get sex as long as they do when they get the opportunity. humans however, have morals and a tendency to care about where they get sex. humans can resist base desires. humans can reason. humans have innate morality born of the fact that God placed it in us. we are God’s creation in His image. homosexuality is not only unnatural, it is illogical and many homosexuals, male and female, act out in highly inappropriate manners that could be seen as not just deviant but psychologically disparate from the mainstream.
Click to expand...
You are making a very confused argument here. You say that homosexuality occurs in nature yet you also say that homosexuality is not natural. One or the other please, but not both.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top