I personally believe that homosexuality is a mental illness. I break with the church, it is no more a ‘sin’ than any other mental diso rder. There is ample evidence to support that if you have the guts to look for it and see it for what it is.I'm afraid that this comment made me somewhat cross, and I replied with somewhat more heat than I usually like to. Having slept on the matter, this still bothers me, and so I'm going to elaborate (hopefully in a more temperate manner than last night).
Before I start, a couple of bits of background:
1. This isn't about Gay Rights/Gay Cooties/whatever. Marko certainly doesn't need my feeble help here, and speaks quite eloquently on the point. As I've said before, I quite frankly don't care if someone's gay, and if Jim and Bob want to run off to Provincetown to tie the knot, then I wish them - like any other newly married couple - much happiness together. I know that some folks think different, and that's OK with me, too; I put on my Big Boy Britches this morning, and sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. This post isn't intended to convince anyone that I'm "right" and they're "wrong".
2. One of the least attractive traits of the Intellectual Left is to sneer at people who hold different ideas as being "ignorant". I'm about as well educated as they come, and I get this all the time - and mostly from people who I quite frankly think are not as smart as I am. It's annoying.
That said, Marko's commenter is ignorant. Not in a calling-names sense, but in a clinical sense: he does not understand what he is saying. The label applies to him in a way that it does not apply to someone whose opinion comes from the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. No ignorance involved there, although we'll have to agree to disagree.
Ignorant.
There are all sorts of mental illnesses, all across a spectrum. At one end are those we can term the "walking wounded" - typically functional but unhappy souls that are too often the butt of jokes. The Jack and 'Zac Cocktail: a Prozac with a Jack Daniels chaser. Some of these folks are probably mis-diagnosed: it's not surprising that (e.g.) someone who's lost a job, getting a divorce, and whose house is being forclosed is not a happy person. People in this category will not be cured with a pill, although talking things out with a therapist seems productive. Or talking to friends and family.
So the commenter is wrong when he says that medical science will "cure" gays, at least if they're in this category. And there are a lot of reasons for someone to be unhappy if they are gay - there's still a lot of discrimination, and a lot of people in the closet; keeping that sort of secret from those you love has got to be a strain. But it's not "mental illness".
There is another end of the spectrum where brain chemistry and physiology dominates. I've seen this personally, and it scares the hell out of me. I have friends that are gay, and that's not the same thing at all.
Mental Illness: irrational feelings of competence, leading to reckless behavior with no thought of expected consequences; grandiose schemes leading to reckless behavior with no thought of expected consequence; irrational rage at being prevented from engaging in desired reckless behavior, etc.
Homosexuality is something very different than this.
The mentally ill are terribly vulnerable, and easily exploited. They do not have the ability that the rest of us have to protect themselves, to appropriately choose who should be trusted and who should not. Essentially they go about their entire lives in Condition White, only it's amp'ed up to 11.
But it's worse than this. People don't understand mental illness, and are scared by it. Heck, I do understand it, and there have been times I've been scared to death by it. Sometimes society opts for the "Old Yeller" solution:
Special needs student John Odgren was convicted yesterday of first-degree murder for killing a classmate whom he encountered randomly in school one morning, concluding a trial that tested the limits of the insanity defense and a high school’s capacity to measure the dangerousness of a troubled teenager.Grandiose schemes leading to reckless behavior with no thought of expected consequence.After 12 hours of deliberations over three days in Middlesex [Massachusetts] Superior Court, a jury of seven women and five men rejected the defense attorneys’ argument that Odgren was legally insane on Jan. 19, 2007, when he fatally stabbed James F. Alenson, 15, in a bathroom before the start of classes at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School.
There's nothing about this that isn't a tragedy: the death of James Alenson, the closing off of the rest of Odgren's life, and the rush to brutal judgment by a jury likely tired of the abuse of the "by reason of insanity" defense by shyster Defense Attorneys. It's not often that I'm grateful that I live in Massachusetts than in Texas; there, he might be on Death Row now.
There are drugs available today that can only be described as "miracle" pills, that correct the brain chemistry and restore balance. Sometimes they're over prescribed, or inappropriately prescribed. Sometimes they just plain don't work on everyone. But as someone who has seen them work - suddenly, almost as if a light switch had been turned on - I'm profoundly grateful to the scientists who have devoted their lives to this challenge.
It gives hope for the possibility of a life as a functional human being.
That is nothing like being gay, and once again I can only say that Marko's commenter can only have been speaking from ignorance. His life - fortunately for him - has not been touched by the scourge of mental illness in his family.
That said, his position is even worse. Suppose for a moment that a drug could be created that would alter the mind enough to "cure" homosexuals. That's a big, big change to a powerful motivation center; I'm skeptical that the drug couldn't be used to change other motivation centers. But I'm not at all skeptical about whether the world is filled with statist pricks who would be delighted to use this en masse to further their political and philosophical ends.
No thanks. We got a view of that in the Gulag, and it's not pretty. There is a regrettable tendency in the scientific community to follow a path where powerful forces want to go.
There is ample evidence to support that if you have the guts to look for it and see it for what it is.If anyone wants to talk about the science, go ahead. But don't bring anything that smells of non- falsifiable argument from authority; I have a nose for that sort of thing. Sadly, science has a regrettable tendency of giving vacuous support to comfortable notions. If you bring this, bring your A-Game.
25 comments:
Well, if Rusty were an ignoramus (he's not) and if you were intelligent (Your're not)- you wouldn't need to write a book to refute his scholarly opinions would ya?
Science has no regrettable tendencies; it is what it is. Idiots like you have the regrettable tendency to ignore it as you do with the butt blasters, global warming and other issues. A century of rock solid psychology has to be thrown out before anything you say can be taken seriously. If you want to pretend the half naked shrieking queers at the pride parades are mentally healthy as they wave rubber dildoes at the kids - you run with it. You and your pervs will stay the hell away from me and mine or you WILL get hurt.
Squawk as you see fit, kid, because I will not be back this way again. If you want to get stupid about your sexuality, YOU bring YOUR A-Game...and bring a body bag too because you will be going home in it.
No wonder I've seen one of my most controversial in your face about not drugging 5 year old kids with antipsychotics post is being read via that post.
I haven't read that post you talk about, but can safely say, psychosis and gay is NOT like cancer and mental illness treatment arguements.
People like to compare needing psych drugs like diabetics need insulin---and there is no medical biological test for mental illness.
Symptoms can only be addressed via chemical intervention, according to the psychiatric modality in place in this country.
Another explanation of complete ignorance, by the haters of the world.
Last I read the DSM-V is going to label just about all quirks, habits, behaviors, personality types, etc and we know why:
Pharma, pharma, pharma. The more labels in that book, the more drugs are pushed onto people.
Fine for the severe situations, I've seen severe too.
But, for the drugs to be coming at people for life style choices, grief, and temper tantrums in 2 year olds---well this is why it's cause for alarm.
The parents reading my post about not drugging little children should take heed, because once the brain is damaged, or the metabolic system is, or permanent parkinson-like movements such as uncontrolled smacking of the lips, tremors, etc NEVER go away.
There are some parents, and this would be hard for them to face: drug their kids, because they cannot handle their child, or parenting, or the child's behavior, or quite possibly their own behavior.
There's a good scene in the movie Family Stone, (great movie) where the father and mother of a deaf-gay son have quite a great rant at a holiday dinner scene about this very topic.
That's a violent comment up there anon---same shit I get from the pharma companies and other pro-pharma readers, some real vile crap comes out, assured that bopepore patch has thick skin, as do I.
Having part of the opposition show up and illustrate your point far better than you could ever say it is one of life's little pleasures.
Thanks, anon! :)
Anon, what makes you think I'm gay? I'm curious.
As to Science has no regrettable tendencies, Dr. Mengele is an existence proof that you're thesis is at best incomplete.
I've seen people use the fact that homosexuality was once classified as a paraphilia (up until DSM-III) as evidence that it's a mental disorder.
The DSM is one of very few self-correcting professional manuals out there. Psychological inquiry is ongoing. The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder has been tested and disproven repeatedly. It has gone the way of psychoanalysis. (And good riddance to both, might I add.)
Homosexuality doesn't meet a single criterion for a mental disorder, much less a mental illness, and it takes a near-total lack of understanding of both psychology and human sexuality to believe the two are in any way connect the two. Unfortunately, our society is filled with pop psychologists.
Homosexuality is mutually exclusive with survival of a species, therefore, it IS a disorder. So what?
I have high blood pressure, a disorder. Like most Americans, I also eat food that isn't healthy for me, and I am overweight as a result. So what?
We don't remove rights from people for anything that does not threaten the rights of others. PERIOD. To do so is immoral and just plain wrong.
Homosexuality isn't hurting ANYONE who isn't a willing participant.
That first comment is threatening.
On the behavior, how come we accept the idea that the gays are, as he said , only the flamboyant "half naked shrieking queers at the pride parades"? It's not true. Gays are not a monolithic block of people behaving in lockstep.
There is a range of human sexuality, behaviors, and experience that included some very odd behavior by people that are clearly oriented at the opposite gender.
It's not like we can only compare gay pride exhibitionists in San Francisco with married people that only had sex to conceive their children and now only exchange fond hugs on their anniversary.
It's way more odd than that. Humans are sexually driven monkeys, do some tech support that involves fixing computers and looking at hard drives and you'll cease to be surprised by anything.
I just want to say that my Uncle is gay, and though I by no means support his "lifestyle" or however you say it, I wholeheartedly support his freedom to make his own freakin decisions.
However, I will say that I don't like anyone forcing their lifestyle down my throat, forcing me (or anyone else, for that matter) to agree with them--that goes for gays, brady bunchers, or conservative Christians who want to start the next Spanish Inquisition.
As John Wayne says: "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."
I see Rusty showed up to comment and couldn't even man up enough to sign his name.
A small point of semantics, Borepatch:
As to Science has no regrettable tendencies, Dr. Mengele is an existence proof that you're thesis is at best incomplete.
Science, being no more than an abstract concept, can't have regrettable tendencies. Or any tendencies at all.
Scientists, on the other hand ... are prey to all the same regrettable tendencies that other humans suffer from.
Bluesun, my point wasn't to debate the pros and cons of homosexuality. It was to point out that "gay == mental illness" is wrong.
Wolfwalker, you're right, although the community of scientists collectively can wander down these dead ends, at least for a while.
Mental Illness: irrational feelings of competence, leading to reckless behavior with no thought of expected consequences; grandiose schemes leading to reckless behavior with no thought of expected consequence; irrational rage at being prevented from engaging in desired reckless behavior, etc.
Hmmm...sounds like every teenager I've ever known.
Re "brain chemistry". I have a close relative who has disorders characterized by brain chemistry imbalances.
The interesting thing is that I've asked several doctors involved in this persons care a simple question: Is it the brain chemistry that causes the illness, or the illness that causes the abnormal brain chemistry.
Every single one of them has admitted that they simply don't know.
The drugs work (sometimes...to some degree or another) by forcing the brain chemistry into more normal patterns, but if the abnormal brain chemistry is being caused by underlying issues that haven't and aren't being addressed, isn't that just treating the symptoms?
As far as homosexuality being a mental disorder...considering how often and dramatically the definitions of mental disorders change, I think it's pretty arrogant of anyone to insist that any abnormal behavior absolutely either is, or is not, a mental disorder.
The human brain and psyche are simply too complex and people are too varied to make such bold unequivocal assertions.
Unless, of course, doing so is nothing more than an "appeal to authority" to rationalize an individual belief.
The drugs work (sometimes...to some degree or another) by forcing the brain chemistry into more normal patterns, but if the abnormal brain chemistry is being caused by underlying issues that haven't and aren't being addressed, isn't that just treating the symptoms?
Man oh man, Curt - that's one heck of a good question.
For sure I don't know. But I do hope that managing the symptoms will help my family member have a happy life.
The human brain and psyche are simply too complex and people are too varied to make such bold unequivocal assertions.
Unless, of course, doing so is nothing more than an "appeal to authority" to rationalize an individual belief.
A scientist would likely say that you just described the Null Hypothesis. It's not up to you to prove it, it's up to the people who propose a specific answer (mental illness). THEY have to prove it.
For sure I don't know. But I do hope that managing the symptoms will help my family member have a happy life.
That was pretty much the doctors responses as well: it doesn't matter which is caused by which, as long as the drugs help.
Unfortunately, at least in my family member's case, the drugs are only of limited effectiveness...and include some frustrating side effects to boot.
I believe we put too much emphasis on medicating problems away because that's easier and more convenient than trying to get them the psychological help they need to try to identify and work through the underlying issues.
Of course, many of the patients prefer the "give 'em a pill, they'll be fine" approach as well, because they'd prefer not to have to face those issues themselves.
I love the Munchkin Wrangler! He is intelligent, well spoken and interesting even if he isn't as smart as he thinks he is. I like Rusty too! He comes across like a kadiddle hopping bumpkin - and he can pop Marko's balloon at will...and he does! It is the stuff of high comedy.
The old man is right though, and you all are wrong. I get a laugh out of all these self proclaimed medical experts that figure they are the authority on the subject.
A. You guys can't cure the common cold - but you know all their is to know about psychiatry and psychology?
B. Spare me your scientists with their studies - a study can be cooked to say anything you want it too, one only need to see the scandal swirling around global warming. The ethics and professionalism of our 'scientific community' showed itself for what it really is.
C. The proof of the pudding is in the empirical evidence. Gays have far higher incidences of mental illness such as depression. Lesbians are legendary for their problems with 'spousal abuse' or whatever the politically correct term is. 'Life partner abuse'? Whatever.
D. None of you knows whether homosexuality is caused by environment or genetics.
The old man at Marko's is politically incorrect, and may be a little slow upstairs...but he's right and you are all wrong. Or at least, until you get some valid science to back you up.
Don
Don, Agree and (I think) disagree.
A. You're perfectly correct. Although I have some personal experience with people with mental illness, si I do know something about it.
B. Agreed. I've written a lot on Global Warming. Se here and here as examples.
C. Do you have any data here? Each of these statements seems measurable, and subject to falsification (IOW, scientifically testable).
D. Correct.
However, you miss the point. Rusty is making an assertion here, that gays are mentally ill. I've said I disagree, and why. While the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", I have offered specifics.
If you have specifics to support your side, I'm all ears. But it looks like all you've done is stated some unsupported assertions.
Data, please.
B. Spare me your scientists with their studies - a study can be cooked to say anything you want it too, one only need to see the scandal swirling around global warming. The ethics and professionalism of our 'scientific community' showed itself for what it really is.
Disagree strongly. Sweeping generalizations like this do a disservice to the large number of scientists who really do try to get things right. It's just as much a fallacy to distrust everything that comes from authority as it is to blindly trust everything that comes from an authority. Every case, every study should be judged on its own merits or lack thereof.
Yes, a lot of studies in psych are a mess. Does that mean we should dismiss, say, vaccination?
I had suggested you start by looking up the suicide stats for homosexuals, followed by stats referring to spousal abuse for starters. That is hard, empirical data that nobody can falsify - even the gay apologists.
I do not dispute that there are exceptions to every rule. Rusty may be incorrect to say all homos are mentally ill, but he would be correct to note that a large majority of them are. I readily admit that some gays are just normal regular people outside their sexuality...but they are the exception.
Finally, I would look at the AIDS epidemic. Figures I have seen have shown gays going through hundreds, and some even thousands of sexual partners in a year. That is not the sign of somebody that is mentally healthy, Borepatch.
I think the gays deserve a fair shake but that's it. I don't care for their attacks on the church, or the family, or our laws. I don't think it is their right to teach my kid about the joys and mechanics of anal sex. I also think that if we have a right to tell guys like Rusty to keep his faith to himself (which he does, contrary to Marko) - we also have the right to tell the homos to keep their politics to themselves as well.
If these people are supposedly all sane and normal, their activism and pride parades would say otherwise.
Don
Wolf, psychologists say they have a handle on less than 5% of the activity going on in the human brain. Comparing the science of psychology to microbilogy is a non-starter.
Furthermore, Rusty was right. I was there when the liberals started throwing out valid classical psychology because it reflected poorly on homosexuality. Sorry, the science is simply not in your corner on this. You can provide data that supports your opinion just as I can...but we simply don't know anything for sure with this. Rusty P Bucket is well within bounds to call homosexuality a mental illness.
Don
Comparing the science of psychology to microbilogy is a non-starter.
Of course it is ... in every way except this one: both fields definitely have their rotten apples, but both fields also have a number of honest, dedicated professionals who are genuinely trying to do good science in the field.
As for whether or not "the science is in my corner" -- it's amusing to watch people like you so eagerly leap to conclusions. Look back at what I actually wrote, not what you want to think I wrote. All I did was criticize someone who committed a logical fallacy that damaged their argument. If you thought I said anything else -- anything at all -- you were wrong.
Figures I have seen have shown gays going through hundreds, and some even thousands of sexual partners in a year. That is not the sign of somebody that is mentally healthy, Borepatch.
The test for mental health is "conforms to Don's sexual mores" now?
And if your statement really is typical of gay people, every single one I know is _way_ behind the curve.
In any case, even if we assume you're right about correlation, you've done nothing to demonstrate causation. Gay people may have higher rates of depression than straight people. Let's see if your happiness is unaffected after you're forbidden to marry your partner.
I don't care for their attacks on the church, or the family, or our laws...we also have the right to tell the homos to keep their politics to themselves as well.
I won't deny that many gay activists go too far in trying to use law to force their preferences on other private individuals and organizations. But while your church or youth group can have whatever policies it wants, all citizens must be equally represented under the law. Activism aimed at correcting legal inequality is always fair game, no matter how accustomed you are to that inequality.
Hell, I'll bet the overwhelming majority of Chicagoans don't care for pro-gunners' attacks on their laws...
Finally (I promise), as presumptuous as it is of you to think that your sexual preferences are a good test for mental health, it's a dozen times more presumptuous to think that you can so glibly define "the family". All those gay folks who want you out of their marriages are families, too, and they're much more under attack than a "traditional" straight couple that might have to [gasp!] live with the knowledge that two men can get married.
And so the next weapon comes out of the gay apologists bag of dirty tricks: moral relativism.
I don't feel any pressing need to justify my mores to you Elmo, and I make no attempt at 'demonstrating causation'. What causes mental illness? Ask an expert. I would say that lewd behaviour, rampant promiscuity and the inability to form lasting sexual relationships are symptoms of an unhealthy mind. You've decided they're not and that's fine. The science may not support me but it doesn't support you either. Where do you draw the line Elmo? Are you going to tell us that pedophilia is actually a healthy alternative lifestyle too? Where do you draw the line?
BTW, real Americans don't really care what people in San Francisco or Chicago think. I'm just sayin'...
As for you Wolf, you wrote nothing worth reading once, never mind twice.
Here is what I need to take the queers seriously: leave me the hell alone. If that idiot, Bill Clinton got one thing right, it was this: don't ask, don't tell. If the queers want to be taken seriously they are going to have to start acting like rational adults. If they do that, they won't need folks like you making lame apologies for them.
Don
And so the next weapon comes out of the gay apologists bag of dirty tricks: moral relativism.
...
Where do you draw the line Elmo? Are you going to tell us that pedophilia is actually a healthy alternative lifestyle too? Where do you draw the line?
Oh, for the love of...
Yes, I'm a moral relativist. Because that's the only rational position to take. An absolute morality requires an absolute authority to set that morality, plus clear evidence that we should accept that authority. Since neither of those conclusions can be proven (even if God exists, as presented his motives and authority would be inherently non-provable), the only intellectually honest conclusion is that if there is an absolute morality, we can't know what it is.
But you're taking a cartoonish view of moral relativism if you honestly think that means "anything goes". Rejecting any morality as absolute--and therefore accepting all moralities as equally valid--inherently requires that we reject the imposition of any morality on another person. That means no gay people forcing your church to perform same-sex marriages. It means no legal system recognizing only families within X steps of its platonic ideal family. It means no fundamentalist Muslims telling women they can't drive. And it means no raping children (and as you're obviously aware, full adult rights to self determination don't apply to children; the suggestion of "consensual" sex between an adult and a child is a misleading example).
There are plenty of self-identified moral relativists who've given as little thought to what it means as you have, and that's a shame. But there are plenty of Christians who don't understand Christian theology, either. Neither undermines the value or legitimacy of the philosophy they claim to follow.
...
What exactly, in your world, coes "an unhealthy mind" actually _mean_? I have a friend who has sex regularly with men he doesn't know very well (though nowhere near "hundreds", much less thousands; I guess you figure gay people do _nothing_ but fornicate ;) ). He does not have a regular partner. He also owns a small business, runs a performance troupe, maintains strong relationships with lots of friends and acquaintances, and is generally _happy_ with his lifestyle. You think this man has an "unhealthy mind", again just because he doesn't see sex the same way you do?
There are two main possibilities: {Out of the diverse variety of sexual behavior and family models that humans have shown throughout recorded history, only the kind that Don practices is healthy. The other ten billion or so humans were all mentally ill.} or {Don is throwing around the language of mental illness to justify his intolerance for healthy people who don't share his cultural mores.} Let's apply Occam's razor here.
Yes, I'm a moral relativist. Because that's the only rational position to take...the only intellectually honest conclusion is that if there is an absolute morality, we can't know what it is.
Quick note, because I realized how easily that can be misconstrued:
I don't mean to say that religious people are stupid. The _evidence_ doesn't support their conclusions, but that's because they're consciously choosing to draw their conclusions in a non-evidence based way. If that works for you, more power to you. I've known far too many brilliant Christians and Jews to dismiss you all as crazy idiots. :)
The inherent non-provability of religious belief doesn't make it wrong or stupid, but it does dramatically limit religion's validity as a basis of law, or as a model for judging another person's morality (obviously assuming they aren't pushing it on anybody else).
Post a Comment