Should Homosexuality be diagnosed as a Mental Disease
Yes
Side Score: 62
|
 |
No
Side Score: 144
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
2
points
0
points
So what your saying is that nearly 1/3 of the world have a mental condition??? Try to think about what your writing before you do you total dickhead (the 1/3 is a complete guess but can in any way be between 1/3 and a half unless a half is lower than a 1/3 my maths is shit) Side: No
"Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."" god didn't create men to love and f men. There was woman created with man. That' why there are 2 genders not so that they end up screwing their own gender. Their are differences in man and woman physically mentally emotionally, and these things make a male and a female perfect together as partners soul mates etc. If gayness was so right, wouldn't gay men be born with a sexual organ so that they could help start family with another male. and vice versa for females. We were all born from our mother and father. none of us are born from a womb of a man, a very simple example to make all you gay retards understand that u wouldn't be in this world NATURALLY* if both ur parents were GAY MEN! so plz stop ruining this world by this disease and all you supporters STOP supporting the basic thing thats against the basic nature of this world. Side: yes
The thing is that yes homosexuality in it's raw form IS a disease. Not a mental disease much more a hormonal disbalance issue, but yep it is a disease. Should we judge people for being ill? Hell no. We do not judge a guy with a broken arm, or cancer. So why should we judge a person with some hormonal issues, that caused him to be gay. Yep that's an abnormality. But it is a personal decision of every person how to live with it. Side: Yes
Bah! You're the guy I was flaming! (Poor choice of words? You be the judge.) It's amazing how close to being right someone can be, then just make a crazy sharp left to Wrongville. I explained on the other side of the isle why you're ridiculously wrong, I'm not going through all that again. I do want to ad though that it's not abnormal or a decision. ALL mammals have a percent of gay members, and EVERYONE is a little gay, and NO I won't go out with you. I said a little tiger, most never even notice it. You don't just wake up one day and say, "today I'm gay!" so frustrating. Honestly I would like you more if you just said, "I hate fags." Seriously, you compare judging gay people to judging someone who's sick? "Be nice to them, just don't touch them, you'll catch homo." You should have said that. Then I could laugh at least. "Homosexuality in its raw form?" what, like it's (now notice my use of the word its and it's, you should take note.) a serum someone made in a lab that needs to be deluded before consumption? What kind of whacked out sci-fi business have you been watching? You know, just using descent sized words and putting them together in an official coherent sounding fashion doesn't make you literate. You need to actually know what you're saying. Side: flaming
-3
points
AIDS is not spread by homosexuality. It is spread by promiscuity. (In particular, you mentioned Africa, where the spread of AIDS is far more attributable to unprotected sex than to homosexuality.) The homosexual subculture does tend toward promiscuity, but this is not a necessary aspect of homosexuality itself. In much the same way as Christianity was associated with patriarchy and, eg., militarism during the Crusades, it's a historical artifact, not a causative association. Sex, when engaged in "properly", can still spread disease, no matter the biological genders of those involved. As for why homosexuality was moved off the list of mental disorders, its true this was for political/social reasons. However, political-social reasons are the only reasons it was on the list in the first place. The idea of "voting away" an affliction is ludicrous because it should not be necessary except in a ludicrous situation! What is "natural" and what is not is a red herring. Nature is not a guide to morality. Self-sacrifice and martyrdom are not "natural", and neither is monogamy (some species mate singly and for life; humans don't tend to unless strongly pressured by social norms). And no, a "right" to homosexuality is never mentioned in the constitution, nor is a more broad right to privacy or freedom of sexuality mentioned; because it is impossible to mention all the things which should be legal in one document. If we're going to argue based on the founding father's intents - which are hardly, again, a guide to morality - the Constitution was written using the guiding philosophy of the "social contract", under which government was formed merely to protect persons from other persons. Homosexuality is victimless, thus not falling under the purview of this minimalistic view of government. If you don't argue based on sinfulness, then why did you bring it up at all? You argued earlier that homosexuality is unnatural. I believe this is false, but I didn't bring that up, because I believe that arguing from "nature" is wrongheaded in the first place; so why do you bring up homosexuality's sinfulness if you believe this is not a good way to argue? You're just trying to be convincing while preventing people from attacking you on this point, getting the best of both worlds. This is not only fallacious, it's deceitful. Side: No
0
points
"Just the concept of a group of medical professionals voting away an affliction is bizarre in the extreme." It is not bizarre in the least, and used to be quite a common practice. This is why "being possessed by an evil spirit" is no longer considered to be a disease, either, but rather something that never happened in the first place but which had been considered to be a disease due to ignorance and superstition. Of course, demonology is still ascribed to by many Evangelicals, Catholics, Central African animists, and pagans. If any of these people would like to propose a vote at the next APA meeting to the effect that various demons are constantly taking over cerebral cortexes or some such, then, well, they (and you) better start hitting the books and applying for college loans, because not just anyone gets in to these sorts of things. The next major DSM redo is in 2012, so I think you may be able to make it if you get started quickly and really keep your eye on the ball. The APA constantly reviews its DSM materials, changes designations, removes qualifications, recategorizes illnesses, and, yes, even "creates" new illnesses when the determination is made that they exist. Similarly, they merge and even "vote away" afflictions, as you say. Similar things are done in every other branch of science, which is why your doctor probably doesn't use leeches during routine exams. This practice is no more "bizarre" than that time when major Evangelical and Catholic leaders came together in 1992 to re-affirm their view that "In, for instance, the formation of the canon of the Scriptures, and in the orthodox response to the great Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the early centuries, we confidently acknowledge the guidance of the Holy Spirit." The undoubtedly Holy Spirit-guided occurrences to which they refer are the intermittent Ecumenical Councils, convened by the Byzantine emperors to settle early theological disputes and which invariably decided these disputes in favor of whichever faction it was to which the emperor himself belonged. The first such council concerned the nature of the Trinity and resulted in what is today known as the Nicene Creed, as well as in the suspected poisoning of a presbyter named Arius who had led the less influential (and thus implicitly misguided) faction. Later, another Ecumenical Council was convened to further clarify exactly who among the losing party could come back from exile. And the seventh of these councils was intended to settle the question of whether or not the icon was holy or demonic, a controversy that had troubled the empire for several hundred years and which had recently broken out into riots, the persecution of monks, and the possibility of an east-west civil war. Things calmed down after a tacit compromise in 787 only to flare back up again in 813 upon the coronation of a new emperor who hailed from the icon-hating east and who was thus inclined to ban the damned things once and for all, thereby reigniting the squabble until this latest decision was reversed by yet another emperor, this time an admirer of the icon, in 843. The Holy Spirit is apparently to be pinned with the blame for all of this. You yourself might be inclined to blame it on the homosexual lobby, though. Anyway, welcome to science! Side: Science
-6
points
3
points
|
but what about the "metro" sexuals? they are straight, but are often confused for homosexuals. and as far as i know, you can be perfectly normal and be homosexual and bisexual. i don't believe that this debate is of any value to anyone, but i just find your argument lacking evidence. Side: No
Firstly, bringing "metrosexual" men into this is a copletely moot point. They are simply responding to the lesser amount of social pressure to be "butch" men. You only find my argument lacking evidence because you haven't looked into the subject. Do a simple google search for the biological reasons behind homosexuality and you will find thousands and thousands of pages documenting it. I suggest you look into the work of Simon LeVay, who found that the hypothalamus (a brain region that governs sexual behavior) in homosexual men has the anatomical form in size usually found in women. This was backed up by Roger Gorski's work. Or you could look into the neuroendocrine viewpoint; the basic hypothesis being that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures. J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied sexual orientation between identical, fraternal twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were homosexual and how many were heterosexual. They found that 52% of identical twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of fraternal twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, may suggest that genetics play an overriding role in sexual orientation over upbringing or the nurture aspect of life. Try the following sources for some evidence: http://allpsych.com/journal/ http://www.familyresearchinst.org/ Side: Yes
I wouldn't go support this view, but don't you think that this abnormality, as any other, especially a biological abnormality, is a deviation of sorts? And what do we do with deviousness in this part of the spectrum? Homosexuality is only possible because of the modern situation, even if we ignore the even-though possibilities of raising a child and getting married here and there. In most of normality based cultures, or more like keeping-the-sacristy-distant-from-some- This is where god dies, once more, and with it our Archimedean point, and with nothing to lever our arrogance, what shall we do with words like diseases and abnormalities? Should we restrict them to fantasy-literature? Still we all agree there is a system that has built itself through self-purifying, and pedophiles and homosexuals and mormons are just another step, and we.. lucky we. Side: Yes
Claiming that homosexuality is a modern situation shows a blatant disregard for history. I suggest you look into the roman and greek empires, where homosexuality was rampent. It's an abnormality yes, as I said, due to a misproduction of male hormones in the womb. But to call it a disease is outrageous. As is bundling paedophiles and homosexuals into the same group of adnormalities. Side: No
If homosexuality is the disease, then what would you suppose the cure is? Women? As i'm reading here it seems that you would like to lump homosexuality into a mental disorder, more so then a disease. But if you'd ever seen the movie Kinsey (or read his work) you'd find that homosexuality isn't as cut and dry as most make it out to be. In fact, he made up a scale which would categorize just how 'gay' a person could be. How are gay are you? 0- Exclusively heterosexual 1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual 4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 6- Exclusively homosexual Since that time alot of research has been done which scans peoplesbrains and found that a gay man has a similar brian structure to a straight woman (and vce versa). But what hasn't been proven is wether their mind ended up that way because they were homosexual or as an effect. In other words, if a man acts and emotionally responds like a woman, is that really what changes the neurons in his head? Or would they have ended up that way simply because he is biologically predisposed with sleeping with the same sex? That's something that won't be figured out until they can follow people throughout life and observe the development of the neurons in a persons brain. Side: Modern sexuality
"Once viewed by authorities as a pathology or mental illness to be cured, homosexuality is now more often investigated as part of a larger impetus to understand the biology, psychology, politics, genetics, history and cultural variations of sexual practice and identity. " "Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring." Side: Modern sexuality
2
points
No, of course not. To be classified as a mental disease, it must be shown to interfere with the person (and those around him/her) living a complete and happy life. There are many happy, productive homosexuals. Therefore, it's not a disease. By analogy, drinking alcohol is in itself not a disease. It only becomes the disease alcoholism when the alcoholic's need for alcohol intereferes with his or her ability to hold down a job, maintain a family, etc. Side: No
They are always doing BULL-SHIT studies that say that homosexuals have half of their brain smaller than the other half. and I repeat: B-U-L-L - S-H-I-T! I have good friends that are homosexual and their is nothing wrong with their intelligence. NOTHING! Whoever thinks that they are is really a dumbass! Side: No
1
point
Aryil...H0m0sexuality is N0t a preference n0 m0re than heter0sexuality is. Y0u sh0uld read s0me 0f the studies they did 0n the brains 0f AIDS patients wh0 have died. There is a c0mpletely different secti0n 0f the brain that is different fr0m heter0sexual pe0ple. It's ast0unding t0 have finally learned this fact. N0 0ne in their right mind w0uld prefer t0 be gay in a straight w0rld. It's a very difficult life. Side: Abs0lutely n0t
1
point
Definition of mental disease: Any disease of the mind; the psychological state of someone who has emotional or behavioral problems serious enough to require psychiatric intervention. Homosexuality is at most mental abnormality because of societies label of it being so. If society didn't label this so there would no need whatsoever to psychiatric intervention(Note: most homosexuals who do request psychiatric intervention do so out of pressure, it is hard for them to live in a society that doesn't accept them,this doesn't prove need however,only social pressure.) The essence of homosexuality in this case is as logical or illogical as that of heterosexuals and bisexuals. Conclusion: Homosexuality can not be labeled a mental disease unless you labeled heterosexuality so as well. Side: No
Ugh, disgusting. Being gay is not a disease. Mental or otherwise. Like someone on the other side said it's some chemical thing that happens in the brain before you're born. I'm not looking it up, I don't care. But the same kind of chemical reactions also make you like Brocolli or whatever. NO, it's not like cancer, or losing a leg, whoever that guy was who said it. A little knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing I guess. It's more like being born with blue eyes or brown you silly bastard. And we're all a little gay, including you and me cowboy. Don't get your hopes up though I'm only interested in girls. Consequently, people who are afraid of or hate gays usually are, so if any homos are looking for a date, find the most ignorant comments on the left hand side and get in touch. Just don't expect to cuddle afterwards, they'll hate themselves until they get horney again. Side: gay dating
1
point
Gee, I don't know. Should being a different race? A different religion? Should having green eyes? Maybe preffering McCain over Obama? How about liking Grey's Anatomy over ER? I like eating chicken in a biscuit crackers with chocolate chip cookies, does that make me weird? The point is, people are who they are. They are the way God made them. Being Gay is no different than liking vanilla over chocolate. Its just who they are, it's never going to change, so people should just accept it. My answer of course being a big fat NO, homosexuality is not a mental disease, anymore than being an ignorant bigot is. Side: No
1
point
Crazy! No, it is a state of mind in my opinion... I think homosexuals tell themselves they're homosexual and choose to live that way... I watched an episode of Dr. Phil (don't laugh ;) ) Where a man said he believed he was born homosexual, and chose to live heterosexual because he believed God wanted him too. God says men shall not lie with men and women with women....I agree...Homosexuality is a choice..Not an illness Side: No
1
point
1
point
No its not a Mental Disease, majority of them are only highly intellectual. Look inside a mental hospital if you can find many homosexual there if there's any. And because most of them are very intelligent people, they were able to convince us that they are normal people too who are very gay being homosexual. They too know that they are living in a habitual sin but believes that God loves them. It's not a Mental Disease, because it is called "Spiritual Disease". Side: No
1
point
If the person who created this thinks that homosexuality should be classified as a mental disease, then what about bisexuality, pansexuality, heck, even heterosexuality? Why not just say that all types of sexual attraction should count as mental diseases and let us create babys in labs and test tubes instead. Live and let live folks Side: Abs0lutely n0t
To the confessionalists I say the Bible (as every other "holy text") should not be interpreted litteraly and we applicate actually NOTHING of what is written in the Old Testament, (only the 10 commandments) Furthermore, does'nt exist the need that eveything procreate! doesn't exist the risk of "contagion" of homosexuality, that isn't a vague, a vice, a perversitiy, but is only a sexual orientation and is insane to consider homosexuality againt nature.... It's only against the norms of religions.... that are fixed on the reproduction on sexuality. But now no else the straight pairs must to make children! and so the value of a pair is based only on the love between the partners. The sexual orientations are thre: heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Side: yes
1
point
Not at all. Their brain isn't diseased. A natural born gay actually just possesses the brain of the opposite sex: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/ My theory for why gays are born in the first place, is that homosexuality is a natural population control. Since 2 gays can't reproduce, it may be a natural method for controlling Earth's population. Side: No
2
points
A natural born gay There is no evidence to suggest that one can "become" homosexual. My theory for why gays are born in the first place, is that homosexuality is a natural population control. Disease is a natural population control (not to anthropomorphize nature, of course; it does not control by design). Homosexuality is the result (I theorize) of a chemical anomaly within the brain. This does not render it a disease; it has no intrinsic negative effects. Since 2 gays can't reproduce, Actually, they can; just not with each other. The ejaculate of a homosexual male is perfectly capable of impregnating a female. it may be a natural method for controlling Earth's population. Doubtful. Homosexuality has existed for most if not all of human history. Videlicet since before population was an issue. Side: I should think not
1
point
"There is no evidence to suggest that one can "become" homosexual." Become homosexual? No. Born homosexual? Possibly. "Homosexuality is the result (I theorize) of a chemical anomaly within the brain. This does not render it a disease; it has no intrinsic negative effects." If you clicked on the link I provided, it shows that the male gay brain is actually that of a straight female. How this happens, I don't know. "Actually, they can; just not with each other. The ejaculate of a homosexual male is perfectly capable of impregnating a female." I know they can. They just have no desire too. They seem perfectly content with adopting a child. "Doubtful. Homosexuality has existed for most if not all of human history. Videlicet since before population was an issue." Well, it was just a theory. Side: No
1
point
1
point
A lot of people forget that normaility, in a world wide sense, does not exist. There may be perspective normality but not a normality in a worldy sense. People love to judge other people who are different than them. People say that he/she is weird, stupid, ugly, etc and etc. It does not make sense to call them weird because not only they are different than you, you are different than them. So now you are different, and thus you should be labeled or judge like how you judge other people. So in reality, if you call something strange a mental disorder, then you must have a mental disorder because you are strange as well from other people's perspective. Society creates a norm and anything outside of its norm is considered a disorder. Don't forget that this society is as well outside the norm of a different society and thus labeled. Everybody has a mental disease. Everybody is different. Norm in a worldy sense does not exist. Side: No
1
point
0
points
The problem with classifying homosexuality as a disease means that we should start looking for a cure and I don't think the gay community wants to be cured. Having said that then the next logical step would be to say that homosexuality is a life style choice, but who would chose to be gay? I mean, I could see choosing to be bi-sexual in order to increase your chances of getting laid but just plain gay? Side: No
-3
points
|
