Homosexuality!

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

I am not sure we can make an assumption that there is no harm in bestiality, I.e.  how would it be dependent on the animal.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.

The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.

Which is a value judgement and not a medical one.

[Udayana]

... 
Incidentally while not the norm, I have no real objection to necrophilia, if there could be a legal statement from someone prior to dying

What!? Why would you need this? Surely permission of next of kin should suffice were it to be allowed? What about cannibalism then? Or all sorts of other possible behaviour ... there is nothing absolute about these things, how we assign values and rights is ultimately, surely, a matter of zeitgeist or fashion?  Even to the recognition of "harm" vs "no harm".

[Rhiannon]

But (stating the bloody obvious) having sex with someone who is dead means you can't have a relationship with them (even if you did once) and that is mentally unhealthy. Of course there are all sorts of behaviours with living partners that aren't exactly healthy either, but homosexuality in and of itself isn't one of them, any more than heterosexuality is.

What about people who like one night stands, casual sex, no strings attached sex etc?

I really do find it hard to believe that value judgments are not involved somewhere.

In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.

[Leonard James]

However, there is one big pro argument, assuming that the treatment is harmless and reliable.

It would give everybody the opportunity to find out what life is like for both sexualities, and the freedom to choose which they prefer! 

[Rhiannon]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.

The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.

Which is a value judgement and not a medical one.

Not from a psychiatric point of view.

Or are you saying that psychiatry is about values not medicine?

[Rhiannon]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

I am not sure we can make an assumption that there is no harm in bestiality, I.e.  how would it be dependent on the animal.

The animal cannot give consent. It is the sexual abuse of another living creature.

[Udayana]

Bit of a circular argument there Rhiannon...

[Rhiannon]

How so?

[Udayana]

no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.
 

[Owlswing]

Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.

Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s.

As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.

[Rhiannon]

no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.

We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?

[Owlswing]

Fanatics?  Oh, look in the mirror.

Again Wiggenhall?!  LOL!  Talk of the subject just once...if you can.

I am talking about the OP, where you seem to say that being gay is a disease.  You actually wrote those words, and they indicate bigotry, which is foul.

The Wiki article says that it can be treated similar to diabetes and cancer. Can't you read simple english?!

What the bright blue f**k are you talking about - Quote - can be treated similar to diabetes and cancer - Unquote.

You mean that homosexuality (presumably both male and female varieties) can be treated by injections of insulin and by radio/chemotherapy.

Personally I think you have, at some time in the past, had your arse groped and now want to rid the world of any chance of it happening aagoin, regardless of the fact that a lot of people, of both sexes, have never groped anyone withoutr their permission.

Talking about the SCIENCE and NOT about YOU the science, if it works is fine as long as the homosexuals are given the choice and nbot having it forced on them.

Now, if science can find a way to turn all heterosexuals and homosexuals/lesbians into bisexuals it will solve the matter entirely!

[Nearly Sane]

no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.

We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?

I think we more specifically argue that informed consent is needed. This isn't primarily about harm but about rights. Animals in terms of how we currently communicate cannot give informed consent so we rule out bestiality. Necrophilia though we could have pre mortem consent given and post mortem the only question is that others could object to the usus, abusus in terms of property

[Udayana]

no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.

We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?

We do .. but that is a matter of definition or fashion then, we are not showing that "no consent" sex is always harmful and, similarly, is also always abuse.

[Udayana]

Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.

Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s.

As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.

You mean .. there might be an advantage to being able to go either way

[Sriram]

However, there is one big pro argument, assuming that the treatment is harmless and reliable.

It would give everybody the opportunity to find out what life is like for both sexualities, and the freedom to choose which they prefer! 

Ah! Thanks Len.  Its nice to see your balanced view on this.

They say some people can be more American than the Americans themselves ....similarly I think perhaps.... some people can be more homosexual than the homosexuals themselves!!

Many people here are getting offended by proxy apparently! Even Trent has been relatively more balanced than the rest of the crowd.

All this hollering and name calling about something as simple as the biological reason for homosexuality and its possible treatment. I can't believe it!

Anyway...I am off for the day. Maybe tomorrow again!   

[Owlswing]

Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.

Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s.

As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.

You mean .. there might be an advantage to being able to go either way

There might!

[Rhiannon]

no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.

We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?

We do .. but that is a matter of definition or fashion then, we are not showing that "no consent" sex is always harmful and, similarly, is also always abuse.

We're in very dangerous territory if we step outside of that.

[floo]

Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.

Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s.

As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.

I write with my left hand but do everything else with my right.

[Rhiannon]

Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.

Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s.

As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.

You mean .. there might be an advantage to being able to go either way

It's not uncommon for women to have affairs with other women. There are famous examples (Mary Portas, Alison Goldfrapp for example) - they don't suddenly self-identify as gay and reject their past heterosexuality, just accept they were with a man, they are now with a woman. I don't know how much more common this is for women than for men but in terms of what I see and hear personally, more women appear to be more fluid in their sexuality than men.

[ippy]

You're a strange bloke Sriram, you go sensible one moment and it looks like there might be some kind of improvement then we get another skidding off of the rails at speed thread like this one?

I've no wish to be on your planet Sriram.

ippy

[Hope]

<does not need to be cured!  But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind

Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!

Nick

Nick, you seem to have a rather weird understanding of ill-health.  By no means is all disease a threat to the survival of humanity; most are unpleasant but by no means life-threatening.

That doesn't mean that a cure for such diseases oughtn't to be sought.

[Rhiannon]

<does not need to be cured!  But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind

Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!

Nick

Nick, you seem to have a rather weird understanding of ill-health.  By no means is all disease a threat to the survival of humanity; most are unpleasant but by no means life-threatening.

That doesn't mean that a cure for such diseases oughtn't to be sought.

But do you put homosexuality into that category?

[Hope]

Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. 

Sriram, supporters of the liberalisation of attitudes to homosexual practice have always used hyperpole in order to make their view appear to be more moderate and therefore acceptable than that of those who disagree with them.  Ironically, the suggestions for why people disagree are often so far from reality as to make one wonder what they really think behind the facade of liberalisation-speak.