Interesting that some posters didn’t know that homosexuality is still being treated by some psychaitrists. The decision to remove it from the diagnostic manual was a decision of an American organisation, the APA. Not even all Americans psychaitrists agreed, several weeks ago some Doper mentioned a psychaitrist known to him or her who still believes homosexuality is a disorder and continues to treat it. Outside of the United States, homosexuality is still seen by many as intrinsically disordered, and in places such as Spain and Eastern Europe psychaitrists are willing to attempt to treat any homosexuals who come to them.
And Esprix. please lighten up on Arcite. This thread was almost becoming as civil and productive as a good Great Debates thread. I know Arcite is neglecting facts and doesn’t have a clue about a great deal of things, but he at least tries to make substantial statements and speak civily. Your sarcastic one-phrase posts do nothing but reduce the thread to everything else here in the Pit.
And The Institute for Creation Research contains actual scientists (though, to some, in name/title only). Does the general body of scientists or scientific research generally support Creationism, either as a belief or as a science?
That there are still some in this country, or anywhere, who believe (however earnestly or genuinely) that homosexuality is some sort of illness or that it can be cured does not necessitate the lending of credence to that standpoint.
How advanced are the psychiatric practices and beliefs in those countries? How long ago, for example, did they stop engaging in frontal lobotomies? How actively do they practice ECT?
And that list is shrinking daily. I believe China and Thailand both had their national psychiatric boards remove homosexuality from their list of disorders, as did (IIRC) the World Health Organization quite a bit back. These are countries filled with people who probably would view homosexuality as intrisically disordered, but their organizations are being confronted by the fact that there’s very good evidence saying it ain’t. I predict Eastern Europe will quietly go down that route in all but name as the European Union starts accepting those states. The world is changing. Some would say for the better, some for the worse, but the old DSM model of homosexuality would seem to be dying out.
The ex-gay programs are getting less and less credibility as too many of their leaders show (getting caught in a gay bar, anyone?) or admit (falling in love with the co-founder of your program?) that they haven’t changed one whit, only repressed.
My personal opinion, devoid of my opinion on the ramifications, is that anyone who wants to sign up for NARTH’s twelve step program or whatever can knock themselves out. It is their right to take whatever path they think is best. I, however, don’t mind the person that I am. Its taken me time to get to this point, but it all was worth it. The experience, the journey, of coming out has made me a better person. I regret very little of it, and would not change being gay.
I posit to you, sir, that my assessment of myself concerning my attraction to other men is completely realistic.
This is incorrect. He is capable of relating to women as other men do except in the natural tendency of them (the straight men) to be attracted to women. That he, the gay man, does not posess this trait should not and does not inherently reflect poorly upon him. He is similarly capable of relating to other men just as another man would except in the corresponding ability to recount tales of “seeing that hot chick walk down the street”.
Do you have, or did I miss, a cite documenting throughout the animal kingdom a natural male-female dichotomy, or even one observably present completely throughout the human aspect of that kingdom? I was unaware, you see, of this black-and-white dichotomy that requires all of one gender to be one way and all of another gender to be another way.
Upon that basis, left-handedness should be disconcerting on a similar plane; left-handedness is not the norm. I note a profound lack in (modern, credible, lest someone here happen to have a 17th century declaration that all lefties are hellbound, or some such drivel) claims that being left-handed is a sign of some sort of Grand Anomaly and not in fitting with God’s plan.
Having taken not only intro but also developmental, social, abnormal and child psychology and being aware of this field, you would be rather well-served to at least read the relevant portions of each text in the required reading section of a college or university with a well-respected Psychology Department. Abnormal will have the most, of course, as there is enough research done on sexuality and enough importance placed on those answers to warrant a section, let alone popular opinion requiring it … I’d recommend also reading the relevant portions of the developmental text in addition to some sort of semi-comprehensive text on the issue of male-female dichotomy and the ease with which it is observed and defined.
I did not find, though your experience may well have been different, sufficient instruction in Intro Psych to make any sort of credible claim (with that knowledge given any my already-sound knowledge of AbPsych discounted on the basis that you do not seem to share same) on how a mental illness would be defined or, more particularly, on what basis homosexuality should be defined as such. However, YMMV.
You stated something, I asked for a cite. You will notice, if you look in this thread that I ask jayjay for a cite on a story he referenced. I clearly do not doubt him but am interested in reading it. My interest here was in reading evidence to back up your claim, though it would be dishonest of me to say that without mentioning that I doubted you would be able to produce any (and thus my point:)).
I believe that treating homosexuality makes about as much sense as treating handedness or skin color or eye color or anything like that about a person. It is a facet of their being. They could, I suppose (and over the years I have become decently adept at), learn to use another hand, or dye their skin or put contacts in, but their natural tendency would be to that which is their phenotype.
Proof/cite?
That is what happens by and large, yes. That is not the only thing that happens.
With a noted remark about the exhibited behaviors of dolphins, why is it imperative that the behavior or inclination of one species be spread to all? We do not see bright plumage on dolphins, yet such is very much present in some species of bird. Likewise the giraffe’s long neck is specific to it as well. Many types of geckos, for example, do not have eyelids, and snakes too have no eyelids. Your belief that an attribute of one animal should, or must, therefore be in all seems to stand in error.
I would think it similarly offensive (call me crazy. Lots of people do:)) if it were incorrectly classified as a disorder, and partly because of that many homosexuals were rounded up and made to undergo conversion therapy in order to “correct” this “disorder”, this “deviation”.
I note the marked impartiality of his work here. Do you have a cite for me, too, about how the theory of evolution is similarly flawed taken from, say, www.fundies.com?
With what body of scientific research and/or evidence do you boldly assert that “some people’s sense of romantic love” (not to mention any number of things having little to do with romance, such as grocery shopping and doing laundry) “is misdirected at members of their own sex.” (bolding mine)? Have The Evil Gay Deceiver [sup]TM[/sup] taken control of their minds and made them to believe they are gay?
Don’t go printing out that book list yet. Read a history of Greek and Roman sexual tendencies and inclinations if you think it’s such a modern innovation. Hardly a new thing. Hell, the Bible even mentions it.
Do you often find citations in recorded history of people shitting, breathing or eating, unless it is integral to the story? And furthermore is it integral to a period of history (unless it plays into it somehow) that a victor in a battle is gay? How would that affect things at all?
What you are discussing (amusing that I’m the first to comment on this:D) is not homosexuality but bisexuality, at least if acts can logically follow and we can say that at least some of these people are bisexual …and given the “straight but not narrow” crowd, I would think it difficult to engage in, much less semi-frequently, muss less enjoy sexual acts with someone one is not attracted to rather … oogy. Unless it’s their job or they’re being paid (or both), it does not seem reaching to say that some who voluntarily engage in sexual acts with members of both sexes are manifesting a bisexual inclination.
Is your knowledge of the literature of that time sufficient that you believe you would have heard of it if it existed? And does the current system of practice used in this era necessitate that it was the case back then? Did they even need the phrase to put forth what they thought, or how that was physically expressed? Absence of evidence (even assuming such exists here) does not equal evidence of absence.
Hey, Arc, how many Christians does it take to change a lightbulb? None, they just sit in the darkness because it’s never mentioned lightbulbs in the bible.
They’re a difference between belief and just plain short-sightedness (ignorence?).
Please. You try living with this every day of your life and see how long before your tolerance for intolerance wears micro-thin. I’ll snap when I want to and I’ll call ignorance when I see it. When I’m in a better mood, then maybe I’ll give some charity, but it sure would be helpful to see some from the bigots first.
Speaking civilly, UnoMondo, does not include saying that all men who are attracted to men have "misdirected [love/affection] at members of their own sex. For example, if I said you were erring in believing in God and were misdirecting your love for The Great Gay Deceiver at God, would you be offended at all? How about if you had seen people espouse this belief for the last 15 years? How about if their beliefs about you (based on not fact but error) resulted in legal discrimination against you, some of which is still in place?
It is one thing to say “you fucking faggot” and have someone insist on tolerance. But there is still a definite lack of civility, even if unintended, in many of the things Arcite has asserted. I do not fault Esprix one whit for his post; quite frankly, some amount of “fuck you” is necessary sometimes lest we all seem like happy jolly people who aren’t offended by the incredibly offensive things that are said on this board.
punha, not to make a big deal of this, but I can’t even see where I posted in that thread, let alone posted a story which you asked for a cite on. Are you sure you have the right thread? I just want to provide that cite if I can, and I can’t remember now what it was supposed to be about…
You rightly took the misuse of “pedophile” to task in the 36-year-old-sleeping-with-the-16-year-old thread. I am surprised to see you not insist on the same rigor for this word. Homo=same. Sex=sex or gender. Homosexual = as to or between the same sex. That’s all it means. There’s no addendum that limits it to consenting adults.
In the same vein, molesters that prey upon the opposite sex can be fairly said to be committing heterosexual acts.
Of course, the remaining tripe in which we are asked to infer that homosexual child molestors are somehow relevant in drawing conclusions about homosexual men in general is… well… tripe. But you can’t redefine a word to please yourself.
That’s what the word would mean in Greek, but it’s not what the word means in English. Pedophiles, for the most part, have no gender preference: they prey on whatever children they have the easiest access to. A heterosxual man is attracted to features that are generally considered “feminine.” A homosexual man is attracted to features generally considered “masculine.” A pedophile is attracted by neither feminine nor masculine features: they are attracted to people who haven’t developed secondary sexual characteristics: namely, children.
No, it’s not, because having sex with a child isn’t the act of a heterosexual: it’s the act of a pedophile.
Nonsense! We redefine words on an almost daily basis. Heck, I don’t think there’s a single word used to describe homosexuals that didn’t have a different original meaning, except “homosexual” itself. And considering how much confusion is created when even well-meaning people define child molestation as a “homosexual act,” (to say nothing of the bigots out there) I think this is an important and necessary redefinition.
Well, insofar as the meaning of words goes, we need not rely on either my unsupported assertion or your unsupported assertion: we have reference material we can cite.
From Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary:
Please note that there is no exclusion limiting the definition to “consenting adults.”
I may have gotten the thread wrong, but it was where I asked for a cite on the ex-gay guy and the bar.
Bricker, it has been my understanding that “homosexual” and “heterosexual” (and etc.) are used, in the specific case of describing sexual acts to describe sexual acts where both parties are capable of consenting under the law. Pedophiles, it is further my understanding, do not choose their victims based on their sexuality.
I have no cite for either of these two positions, btw, in case you were going to (rightfully) ask for one.
punha, Here is the Christianity Today article about Exodus’ disciplining of Paulk because of the gay bar visit. I’m posting it here rather than dredging up puddleglum’s dismal thread…
No cite, I’m forming my own argument. An action cannot be homosexual or heterosexual. The modifier describes the persons committing the action, not the action itself. A homosexual act is sex between two homosexuals. A heterosexual act is sex between two heterosexuals. A pedophiliac act is an sex between a pedophile and his or her victim. Yeah, I know the dictionary disagrees with me. Dictionary’s wrong.
There are often shades and nuances of meaning that a dictionary does not cover. While adhering to a “strict constructionist” definition, the common labeling of a man who preys on young boys is not homosexual, but rather pedophile.
The common understanding is that heterosexual and homosexual refers to those who are attracted to those able to consent.
Whose common understanding? If it’s so common, why isn’t it reflected in some sort of reference?
Look, just because you wish a word had a particular meaning, doesn’t make it so.
Sorry. Miller has it right – he acknowledges he’s creating a new, non-standard use of the word.
The problem with doing that is that readers may assume you mean the standard, dictionary definition, or they may be hip to your new, “better” definition.
Whoa, there, Rick! I started to answer you last night, but the hamsters didn’t like my syntax, and rejected the post.
What you cited a definition for above was an adjective. You can no more transfer its meaning to the substantive with a related meaning than I could take one of those half-baked websites that argue that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and claim that “they must be valid, se, they even have “constitutional” in the title of the rant!” Or assume that if I want to get a dozen oranges, I can produce my desired outcome, following the dictionary definition for “orange (adj.),” by mixing together a half dozen Reds and an equal number of yellows.
Is a “homosexual act” an act which itself conforms to your definition or an act performed by a homosexual? Is the infamous “homosexual agenda” an agenda which lusts after other agendas of the same sex? (How do you determine the sex of an agenda?
As the noun term “homosexual” is used by people who describe themselves and the group with which they themselves identify, they mean by it, “I am an adult man who desires sex, or a permanent relationship involving sex, with another adult man” with variations on the phrasing to address adolescent boys desiring sex with other boys of their age, Lesbians desiring sex with other adult women, adolescent Lesbians who desire sex with girls of their age, etc. To carry over the broad-brush phrasing of the adjective and apply it to the self-identification of the men who use the noun of themselves is a rhetorical solecism.
If you choose to use the adjective as a noun, and base your opinion on the M-W definition of the adjective, you will not be offended at the use of the term “shyster” to describe you in any forum of this board, since one of the dictionary definitions is merely “a lawyer.” If, on the other hand, you believe that carries an unsavory and insulting connotation you wish to not have applied to you, you will understand the objection that is raised to “homosexual” as a noun including pederasts.
It is? Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary specifically says that shyster means:
. I don’t see any meaning that merely says, “a lawyer.”
The noun “homosexual” means (same source):
Now, it is true that normal adult homosexuals have no wish to be identified with child molestors, nor should they be - we are, I hope everyone can see, in complete agreement there.
But the fact remains that despite that wish, the word means what it means - it makes no distinction as to age.
I acknowledge that dictionaries do not always keep up with the changing, living creature that is language. But I also suggest that I’ve met my burden: I’ve shown the word, as defined by the dictionary, does not include a caveat about the age of the actors. The burden of proof now falls to you to show that, despite the dictionary, the word has this meaning you claim for it. The mere unsupported claim that this is what some people mean when they say it is insufficient.
In another thread, a thirty-something man having sex with a 16-year-old girl was characterized as a pedophile by some posters. iampunha rightly took those people to task, even though they defended themselves with a variant of the same argument you advance: many people use the word this way.
I don’t know where the line is drawn between these two competing ideals - the fact that a word has a meaning which may not be capriciously or arbitrarily changed, and the fact that we have a living language in which the meanings of words change over time based on popular use, not academic authority.
So: I make room for the possibility that your definition is acceptable and accepted by enough people to matter. But I don’t agree that you’ve made your case just yet.
