Originally posted by It's xyz!An illness inhibits the survival of an individual afflicted with it.
I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness.
Not reproducing doesn't inhibit that individual's survival. Nor does being homosexual, since homosexuals were not distinguishable from heterosexuals in functioning when tested, which is why the DSM no longer lists it as a mental disorder.
Also, what do you mean acts that don't reproduce? Any act? So doing anything that isn't dedicated directly toward reproduction is degenerate (there is no reason to assume this btw, but you state it like it's a given)? So listening to music in private, being that it isn't for the purpose of reproduction, is that degenerate? Is watching a movie? Be more specific. What kind of act is degenerate if it doesn't reproduce? Actions that relate solely to romance? Based on what philosophical literature? Because what you're talking about isn't from a "biological perspective", by the way. "Degenerate", in the context you are using it, means "having low moral standards". Your point is not a scientific one, it's moralistic.
Originally posted by NemeBroI'm pretty sure homosexuality does inhibit an individual's survival on a social perspective. This is probably why homosexuality and mental illness correlate.
An illness inhibits the survival of an individual afflicted with it.Not reproducing doesn't inhibit that individual's survival. Nor does being homosexual, since homosexuals were not distinguishable from heterosexuals in functioning when tested, which is why the DSM no longer lists it as a mental disorder.
Also, what do you mean acts that don't reproduce? Any act? So doing anything that isn't dedicated directly toward reproduction is degenerate (there is no reason to assume this btw, but you state it like it's a given)? So listening to music in private, being that it isn't for the purpose of reproduction, is that degenerate? Is watching a movie? Be more specific. What kind of act is degenerate if it doesn't reproduce? Actions that relate solely to romance? Based on what philosophical literature? Because what you're talking about isn't from a "biological perspective", by the way. "Degenerate", in the context you are using it, means "having low moral standards". Your point is not a scientific one, it's moralistic.
I'd need to know more of these tests to make an informed judgement.
I state it as bold fact. Degenerate means against generation. Any sexual act that isn't for the purpose of generating offspring is, by definition, degenerate.
As for cultural activities, they are not relevant to biological production. I'm talking about sex here. This is my position, anyway.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
I'm pretty sure homosexuality does inhibit an individual's survival on a social perspective.
The homosexuality itself isn't responsible for that, the people within society who ostracize them are. You wouldn't consider a black man in the Jim Crow era to be suffering from an illness due to his ethnicity making him less likely to survive in society, would you? Why would you consider homosexuality an illness based on the actions of other people?
This is probably why homosexuality and mental illness correlate.
Probably.
I'd need to know more of these tests to make an informed judgement.
You would, so why are you posting about it?
I state it as bold fact. Degenerate means against generation. Any sexual act that isn't for the purpose of generating offspring is, by definition, degenerate.
Let's pretend for a moment that you're not changing the definition of "degenerate" to suit your own agenda. Let us pretend for a moment that degenerate does, in fact, mean "against generation" based on a literal interpretation of the prefix "de" which can mean "removal of" or "reversal of".
Your labeling still does not work. A homosexual couple performing sexual acts that don't reproduce is not against reproduction. To generate, in this context, means to produce life, correct? What would being against it, or removing or reversing it, be then? That's right, it would be taking life away.
Now that we've established that your own biased interpretation of the word is bunk based on the very reasoning you used to interpret it as such, let's be clear here: no, that is not the definition of degenerate, you can't change the English language because you feel like it.
As for cultural activities, they are not relevant to biological production. I'm talking about sex here. This is my position, anyway.
In what way is two dykes rubbing their ***** together relevant to biological production? They can't reproduce. Why does this bother you, my son?
Re: Homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973
Originally posted by Raisen
http://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_mental_health.htmlHomosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental illness until 1973. At this time several thousand psychologists with the backing of a strong gay movement attempted to have it dismissed as a mental illness.
What say you? Is it a mental illness or not?
I personally believe in some cases it may be an illness as it is more associated with narcissim, bi polar, and borderline personality(outlined in numerous sources) but i'm sure many cases are not.
Up until the 90's it was still listed in an illness in one form or another...so what changed?
In the 1950s, when McCarthyism was at its height and suspected homosexuals were being purged from government employment, Evelyn Hooker had the insight and courage to scientifically test the then-prevalent assumption that homosexuality was indicative of pathology. She administered projective tests to matched pairs of homosexual and heterosexual men (none of them psychiatric patients) and asked internationally recognized testing experts to rate each man’s adjustment without knowing his sexual orientation.
The experts judged most of the men in both groups to be functioning well—a finding incompatible with the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness. Moreover, using the men’s responses to a diagnostic test, the judges couldn’t distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual men. (Hooker also analyzed the protocols herself using then-popular scoring systems and found a few statistically significant differences, but they didn’t permit reliable differentiation of the two groups.)
Hooker’s research was subsequently replicated by other scientists, creating an empirical foundation for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.
It had very little to do with pressure from a socially unpopular group.
Originally posted by NemeBroA black man in the Jim Crow era had a problem, that problem was white Americans. This was a matter of race and economics, however. Homosexuality is not a race. It's not like two homosexuals have sex and create another homosexual. Homosexuality is responsible for being ostracised because it is they who ostracise themselves. Most people are social, straight and generally pleasant. Homosexuals do not wish to partake in social norms so have their own night clubs because they want their own night clubs. Straight people did not segregate homosexuals and gave them their own bar because they originated from a different continent. Homosexuals create their own bars. Homosexuals make their own consensual sex as free individuals. Their lack of reproduction and subsequent difficulties in life are not the fault of straight people.
The homosexuality itself isn't responsible for that, the people within society who ostracize them are. You wouldn't consider a black man in the Jim Crow era to be suffering from an illness due to his ethnicity making him less likely to survive in society, would you? Why would you consider homosexuality an illness based on the actions of other people?
Probably.sure, ok. But homosexuality does slow the species down from reproduction. I guess a more appropriate word is disease? It is detrimental to survival though.You would, so why are you posting about it?
Let's pretend for a moment that you're not changing the definition of "degenerate" to suit your own agenda. Let us pretend for a moment that degenerate does, in fact, mean "against generation" based on a literal interpretation of the prefix "de" which can mean "removal of" or "reversal of".
Your labeling still does not work. A homosexual couple performing sexual acts that don't reproduce is not against reproduction. To generate, in this context, means to produce life, correct? What would being against it, or removing or reversing it, be then? That's right, it would be taking life away.
Now that we've established that your own biased interpretation of the word is bunk based on the very reasoning you used to interpret it as such, let's be clear here: no, that is not the definition of degenerate, you can't change the English language because you feel like it.
In what way is two dykes rubbing their ***** together relevant to biological production? They can't reproduce. Why does this bother you, my son?it it isn't relevant to biological reproduction. Two dykes rubbing their ***** together sounds pretty homosexual to me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bsworthless pieces of crap biodegrade into the soil.
Really? Even if 8 out of 10 kids grow up to be worthless pieces of crap? I for one am less glad.At least have the decency and self awareness to stop copying websites word for word and passing them off as their own, instead of just linking the source.
Seriously tho, reproduction is good!
Originally posted by It's xyz!
A black man in the Jim Crow era had a problem, that problem was white Americans. This was a matter of race and economics, however. Homosexuality is not a race. It's not like two homosexuals have sex and create another homosexual. Homosexuality is responsible for being ostracised because it is they who ostracise themselves. Most people are social, straight and generally pleasant. Homosexuals do not wish to partake in social norms so have their own night clubs because they want their own night clubs. Straight people did not segregate homosexuals and gave them their own bar because they originated from a different continent. Homosexuals create their own bars. Homosexuals make their own consensual sex as free individuals. Their lack of reproduction and subsequent difficulties in life are not the fault of straight people.
And the problem of homosexuals is intolerant heterosexuals, or to be more accurate, homophobes.
Homosexuals did not create their own bars and night clubs for the sake of doing so, they did it to have a place to have a good time without having to deal with the bigotry of people who irrationally disapprove of their sexuality. They want their own night clubs so they can have their own night clubs? Please, don't be so ignorant. That's circular reasoning.
Do not wish? Are you implying homosexuality is a choice? You're really behind the times my son.
The lack of reproduction isn't, but any difficulties resulting from people hating them and discriminating against them is solely the fault of the discriminators.
sure, ok. But homosexuality does slow the species down from reproduction. I guess a more appropriate word is disease? It is detrimental to survival though.
There is no reason to assume anything you just said. We live in a society where consensual sex between two heterosexual people is not required to have a child. If a homosexual couple wanted children, there are several avenues they could take to get one. The same is true of heterosexual couples.
Your rhetoric has no basis in reality.
it it isn't relevant to biological reproduction. Two dykes rubbing their ***** together sounds pretty homosexual to me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
So if it isn't, why do you label homosexual activity a mental illness, and not cultural activities?
Also, what is up with your obsession with breeding anyway? Our race is in no danger of dying out, and many people are already starving for resources. We're in no high demand for more people.
Originally posted by NemeBroI don't think it's irrational to disapprove of homosexuality. It's pretty disgusting to a lot of people. But it's still not comparable to Jim Crow laws. One is segregation of race, the other is a group of people who share a common interest that the majority do not like. End up finding a bar just for people who like such a thing.
And the problem of homosexuals is intolerant heterosexuals, or to be more accurate, homophobes.Homosexuals did not create their own bars and night clubs for the sake of doing so, they did it to have a place to have a good time without having to deal with the bigotry of people who irrationally disapprove of their sexuality. They want their own night clubs so they can have their own night clubs? Please, don't be so ignorant. That's circular reasoning.
A gay club is more like a goth club or tumblr.
Do not wish? Are you implying homosexuality is a choice? You're really behind the times my son.I said wish, not choose.The lack of reproduction isn't, but any difficulties resulting from people hating them and discriminating against them is solely the fault of the discriminators.
And no. It's not the bigots. It's not the discriminators. The problem with homosexuals is the very culture itself. Men or women trying to flirt with members of their own sex when usually the other person isn't interested is why homosexuals made their own night club so they knew that everyone there was gay and therefore, more inclined. I understand that men and women can harass members of the opposite sex too, but this is usually forgiven. People who flirt with their own sex is usually repulsive. Again, I'll point to heterosexuality being the main cause of evolution and homosexuality as against reproduction.
There is no reason to assume anything you just said. We live in a society where consensual sex between two heterosexual people is not required to have a child. If a homosexual couple wanted children, there are several avenues they could take to get one. The same is true of heterosexual couples.it very much is the reality. If consensual sex between a man and a woman is not required for a child, why is it the most common way children are made, and the one practised over millions of years? Probably because it's the most effective and pleasurable. Any other form of creating a child is used as a last resort because of some biological defect, usually. I am of course talking about straight couples here. I don't know how many gay people raise children.Your rhetoric has no basis in reality.
So if it isn't, why do you label homosexual activity a mental illness, and not cultural activities?people are not a resource! They are a species we are a part of and for millions of years have survived through breeding. Millions of years of evolution and we have a focused group of people who are not attracted to the opposite sex. Sounds like a mental illness to me.Also, what is up with your obsession with breeding anyway? Our race is in no danger of dying out, and many people are already starving for resources. We're in no high demand for more people.
But this depends on the definition of mental illness, as I have stated before.
Originally posted by It's xyz!No, it's not. Society dictates in a large part what's considered as 'normal' or acceptable, with just a little room for subjectiveness in minor behaviours. And it's a good word to use because it's simple and helps us to not deviate from the subject like you do with your 'interpretation' of words.
I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness.
Ok, so making use of any anticonceptive method signals a mental disorder?
Originally posted by Adam Grimeshomosexuality is illness in an evolutionary context. Normality is not a good word to use. Everyone has a different idea of normal.
No, it's not. Society dictates in a large part what's considered as 'normal' or acceptable, with just a little room for subjectiveness in minor behaviours. And it's a good word to use because it's simple and helps us to not deviate from the subject like you do with your 'interpretation' of words.Ok, so making use of any anticonceptive method signals a mental disorder?
Being attracted to your own biological sex and not the opposite is a mental disorder.
It's not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone has their quirks and fetishes, but homosexuals do not wish to reproduce with the other sex. I'm pretty sure most people in the world, a huge percentage would want to find a member of the opposite sex and raise a family. That's normal. It's understandable, even on a scientific level.
Homosexuality, is very abnormal. It's a mental disorder. It's illness.