Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Since when is one not allowed to disagree with scientific opinion?

 

[gerhard]

scientific opinion is a non sequiter

 

[poloktim]

Since when is one not allowed to disagree with scientific opinion?

You most certainly can disagree, but you'd end up looking pretty silly trying to argue with a geographer that the Earth is flat. Just like you'd end up looking pretty silly trying to argue with most psychiatrists that homosexuality is a disease.

The views are also scientifically established. That is, the views have plenty of evidence to support them. In this case the only view against those of the scientists are "olol god made adam and eve, you git, not adam and steve! olol!" and its variants (secular and otherwise).

 

[dagwoman]

I did read it. And I made it obvious it was C + P- I had quotation marks! What's your point about "Dr. Robert Spitzer was scheduled to be the moderator"? I'm aware it was the same man you mentioned earlier. Didn't you read the rest of the post?

 

[_dhj_]

You most certainly can disagree, but you'd end up looking pretty silly trying to argue with a geographer that the Earth is flat. Just like you'd end up looking pretty silly trying to argue with most psychiatrists that homosexuality is a disease.

The views are also scientifically established. That is, the views have plenty of evidence to support them. In this case the only view against those of the scientists are "olol god made adam and eve, you git, not adam and steve! olol!" and its variants (secular and otherwise).

The authority of scientific knowledge is a matter of degree depending on the issue. "The Earth is flat" is a fairly well established and undisputed matter of fact, whereas "Homosexuality is not a disease" is a less undisputable view and a matter of classification. To characterise them in the same manner is ridiculous. The prevailing view in science or medicine per se is also not determinative of truth in other disciplines such as philosophy and law.

 

[KFunk]

"The Earth is flat" is a fairly well established and undisputed matter of fact, whereas "Homosexuality is not a disease" is a less undisputable view and a matter of classification.

More to the point, whether 'homosexuality is a disease' is a matter of debate in the scientific community, rather than a matter of consensus. With a case like this in particular one could argue that the answer comes down, ultimately, to a value laden judgement. If one takes a sample of google generated definitions of disease:

1. An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning
2. Process injurious to health and/or longevity
3. A condition of an organic being or of one of its parts that impairs normal living functioning
.
.
.

one can see that whether or not homosexuality is a disease depends largely on a) how one defines disease in the first place (it is partly a semantics game, as dhj pointed out) and b) the values held by the individual when the value-dependent useage of a word like 'abnormal' is used. In this case, where the answer appeals to values and semantics, it would seem that it really isn't a scientific question at all. However, if you want to take 'abnormal' as differing from a certain range of 'normality' then all you do is show that homosexuals differ from the average heterosexual - which is a truism.

EDIT:

Looking at the behaviour of animals I wonder whether it can't be argued that homosexuality is very much a natural phenomenon. Same sex relationships seem to have definate social function in the animal kingdom.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/images/040723_gayanimals.jpg

 

[Se!zuRe.]

1. An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning

im going to have to agree on the statement of it being disease if it is in fact defined as being abnormal activity. Even though in the minds of the individual who is in fact a homosexual they do not see their behaviour as being "abnormal" i wuld have to disagree and i think a lot of ppl wuld support me on this that sleeping with a member of the same gender is pretty damn abnormal!!111!

 

[poloktim]

The authority of scientific knowledge is a matter of degree depending on the issue. "The Earth is flat" is a fairly well established and undisputed matter of fact, whereas "Homosexuality is not a disease" is a less undisputable view and a matter of classification. To characterise them in the same manner is ridiculous.

While I agree to characterise them in the same manner is amusing, I was just referring to a previous poster's example, to keep continuity.
However, you say that "homosexuality not being a disease" is a matter of classification. Shouldn't it be noted that there are experts almost worldwide that classify it as such (not a disease)? More importantly to keep on the topic of discussion (Homosexuality in Australia), shouldn't it be noted that experts Australia-wide have the same consensus (that homosexuality is not a disease)?

The prevailing view in science or medicine per se is also not determinative of truth in other disciplines such as philosophy and law.

We were talking about diseases though, which is included in the science of medicine. I'm well aware that some countries either outlaw it (for example, Sharia law practicing countries, India, Singapore, and some Pacific Islands), and others discourage it (China doesn't criminalise the activity, but considers it a moldering lifestyle of capitalism). I'm also aware of religious traditions' reservations about it. A truth in science doesn't necessarily mean a truth in other disciplines, but a truth in medicine does mean a truth in medicine.

More to the point, whether 'homosexuality is a disease' is a matter of debate in the scientific community, rather than a matter of consensus.

Unfortunately this debate isn't quite as large as it should be because of political pressure to keep this topic away. Because the issue is a political controversy (religious groups, conservative groups, et cetera may not want the issue to be studied because it could suggest a more open and understanding view towards the issue instead of their own stance. Conflictingly, there are the gay groups or extreme left who may attempt to influence any such studies in their own way, or prevent the studies in support of the status quo.

If one takes a sample of google generated definitions of disease:

1. An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning
2. Process injurious to health and/or longevity
3. A condition of an organic being or of one of its parts that impairs normal living .
.
.
.

one can see that whether or not homosexuality is a disease depends largely on a) how one defines disease in the first place (it is partly a semantics game, as dhj pointed out) and b) the values held by the individual when the value-dependent useage of a word like 'abnormal' is used.

One could argue as you suggest, both ways using this definition. Unless the individual in question has a fertility or reproductive problem, a homosexual person can have intercourse with a member of the opposite sex to produce a child. It can be argued that one's sexual preference does not stop one from reproduction, it simply determines which gender the particular person prefers to engage in intercourse with.

If homosexuality were to be a disease, perhaps it should be looked at in the mental sense (mental disorder as defined by google):

• (DSM-IV) any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom. Mental disorders are assumed to be the manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. ...
• Clinically significant behavioural or psychological syndrome that occurs in an individual and is associated with present distress (eg a painful symptom) or disability (ie impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom.
• means any disease or condition, regardless of whether the cause is organic, that is classified as a Mental Disorder in the current edition of International Classification of Diseases, published by the US Department of Health and Human Services or is listed in the current edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.
• is a mental or nervous condition diagnosed by a practitioner according to the criteria in the DSM-IV and limited to severe impairment of a member's mental, emotional or behavioral functioning on a daily basis.
• (psychiatry) a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness
• A mental illness is a disorder of the brain that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. Mental illness is distinct from the legal concept of insanity.

First, one needs to determine if a homosexual person:
- has distressing symptoms (some homoesexual people live a happy life, and often are only distressed during the times when they're in or coming out of the closet);
- impairment of functioning (a homosexual person can still have intercourse with a member of the opposite sex to produce children);
- increased risk of suffering death (homosexuality doesn't kill anybody... the AIDS card won't play here as it also affects heterosexual people);
- pain (being an orientation/preference, there's no pain involved);
- loss of freedom (in countries mentioned above sans China, this would be the case but in Australia it would not).

The ones that mention the Department of Health and Human Services and the APA or DSM-IV also are important to non-medical professionals. We might also look to any Australian editions of these publications.

However, again, this is relative. As you mentioned, a persons set of values will likely help shape this. Regardless of what those values are.

 

[KFunk]

For those who have decided that homosexuality is abnormal (and, in some cases, that it is therefore a mental disorder) I pose a few questions about normality:

- What is normal (i.e. what standard/definition are you using?), and what is normal sexuality?

- Is it wrong for someone to be abnormal ? (I would argue it is not. For example, I could decide that earth worms, when prepared in the right way, make a delicious meal. To eat earthworms is not normal, nor is it wrong to do so. Therefore abnormality does not entail 'wrongness'.)

- If the norm to which homosexuality is being compared is the heterosexual relationship then does the cellibant/asexual individual, the swinger or the bisexual also suffer from a 'disease'?

- If homosexuality is accepted as a mental disorder, what then? Does it warrant treatment - medication or therapy? Why would treating an individual for their homosexuality be the right thing to do?

etc... etc...

 

[dagwoman]

And what about the fact that there is a multitude of documented cases showing homosexuality amongst animals, which clearly disproves the idea that it's "unnatural"?

 

[dagwoman]

I AGREE COMPLETELY, HOW CAN U CONSIDER IT IN ANY WAY SLEEPING WITH SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER NORMAL!

I find it really unfortunate that you're unable to respect people with a sexuality that differs from yours. For gay people, the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex is as unpleasant as you would view the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex.

And what's all this argument with "normal"? What does normal mean? Why is it important?

 

[bshoc]

I did read it. And I made it obvious it was C + P- I had quotation marks! What's your point about "Dr. Robert Spitzer was scheduled to be the moderator"? I'm aware it was the same man you mentioned earlier. Didn't you read the rest of the post?

Well if you actually read the science journal article I posted about curing gay people with therapy, you would have noted that it was Robert Spitzer who wrote it, the same guy who got homosexuality removed from the list of US mental health disorders only to write about the successes of therapy now. Which is why Spitzer was the MODERATOR, science doesen't use biased people as moderators.

 

[bshoc]

this isnt about politics bshoc, its about science. thats the point. you cant argue with scientifically established views and back it up by saying thats my opinion. just like you cant argue with the scientifically established view that the earth is not flat and argue that 'its my opinion'.

There is no scientific consensus on this topic at all as I have proven, not that doing the scientifically "correct" thing is always beneficial or right, incase you haven't noticed science gave us the atom bomb, myriads of synthetic bilogical agents and things like nazi eugenics and so forth.

 

[gerhard]

no it didnt. science can only give us knowledge. scientists dont decide what to do with that knowledge. politicians government do, and as such they should be held accountable.

 

[withoutaface]

im going to have to agree on the statement of it being disease if it is in fact defined as being abnormal activity. Even though in the minds of the individual who is in fact a homosexual they do not see their behaviour as being "abnormal" i wuld have to disagree and i think a lot of ppl wuld support me on this that sleeping with a member of the same gender is pretty damn abnormal!!111!

Being a male who's doing his HSC in 2007 is abnormal. I mean, that description covers 1-2% of the population tops, hence abnormal.

 

[dagwoman]

Yes, it doesn't usually used biased people. But you'll noticed the debate they were to have was CANCELLED, due to lack of bias.

And I already spoke about the "experiment" Spitzer did with those people, and how the vast majority of them were evangelical Christians.

 

[dagwoman]

As I posted earlier:

And what about the fact that there is a multitude of documented cases showing homosexuality amongst animals, which clearly disproves the idea that it's "unnatural"?

Here's an article about some such documented cases:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20571062-5005961,00.html

Excerpt: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

 

[Se!zuRe.]

my new theory.... i was just bored at school hence me referring to this site but IMO homosexuality is not abnormal in the views of the people actively engaging in homosexual relations, or who infact are a homosexual. Due to this i find abnormal as being a persons personal opinion of the subject matter at hand, for Eg an average heterosexula male, usually at a young age and still maturing (jhopkins) ,would consider homosexuality to be completely abnormal, but this is simply just his opinion so whose to say what is and what isnt classified as "abnormal".

 

[Se!zuRe.]

still on the topic as homosexuality being seen as "abnormal" let me shed some light on the topic from past decades. there was once a time when homosexuality was seen as abnormal but this has been practiced since the earliest periods of recorded history. at one point homosexuality was infact listed as being a sexual disorder but since the 60s has been greatly debated over. here as an exert from an article based on this issue
Defining homosexuality as a disorder seemed more based on values than on any data. In 1973, the
board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted to drop
homosexuality from its list of disorders. They stated that
homosexuality is "a normal form of sexual life"

But along with this comes the idea of homosexuality being a disorder that has been a part of the childs upbrining. Some researchers have infact indentified abnormal patterns of upbringing and relationships that seem to lead to homosexuality. hence homosexuality is said to be the result of some disturbed or traumatised upbringing in this childs life.

So whose to say whats wrong and whats right its simply an opinon and everyone is due to their own opinion. i just thought i wuld shed some light on some scientific data. xD

 

[Not-That-Bright]

not that doing the scientifically "correct" thing is always beneficial or right

Bshoc, there is no "scientifically correct" way to go about doing things, those are moral decisions which science may merely help to aid. Science isn't good or evil, it's just how we go about discovering how things work, it's value-judgement neutral with no morals. For example take eugenics, science explains how that could work, however whether you think it's a good idea depends on your moral stance on it.