Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Gonnagle]

Dear Mods,

Is that joke sexist, well is it, is it covered in 1h of the forum rules, well is it, bloody funny all the same.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Mods,

Is that joke sexist, well is it, is it covered in 1h of the forum rules, well is it, bloody funny all the same.

Gonnagle.

I'd say it is fine since, and quite reasonably Owlswing (not Shaker, as I wrongly said pre-edit) is poking fun at Harley Davidson motorcycles: these are truly laughable since they are slow, often have crap brakes, and even worse handling (they don't like going around corners): an under-powered Victoria spongecake would be more fun.   

[Owlswing]

I'd say it is fine since, and quite reasonably Shaker is poking fun at Harley Davidson motorcycles: these are truly laughable since they are slow, often have crap brakes, and even worse handling (they don't like going around corners): an under-powered Victoria spongecake would be more fun. 

One - the joke was not posted by Shaker.

Two - A Harley is second only to a Bonneville 650.

[floo]

Maybe you guys should start a thread on motorbikes, BORING!

[Gordon]

One - the joke was not posted by Shaker.

Two - A Harley is second only to a Bonneville 650.

Apologies - I'll amend my post (and avoid further motorcycle derails, even about slow bikes, such as both those you mention) 

[Brownie]

Maybe you guys should start a thread on motorbikes, BORING!

Not boring if you are leader of the pack, floo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UKf65NOzM

[Bubbles]

I'd say it is fine since, and quite reasonably Owlswing (not Shaker, as I wrongly said pre-edit) is poking fun at Harley Davidson motorcycles: these are truly laughable since they are slow, often have crap brakes, and even worse handling (they don't like going around corners): an under-powered Victoria spongecake would be more fun. 

Hey!

But they look nice....... All that gleaming chrome ....  Going slow gives the riders more scope for showing them  off. 

 

[Owlswing]

Hey!

But they look nice....... All that gleaming chrome ....  Going slow gives the riders more scope for showing them  off. 

 

The thing is that Harley's never were speed machines. They are built to run on long road trips at a steady pace for hour after hour.

[Spud]

I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?

Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.

If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.

I have read what the WHO and Mental Health Act 2007 says about homosexuality. They state that it is not by itself a psychiatric disorder. However, when accompanied by symptoms such as depression or low self esteem caused by things like discrimination or dissatisfaction with one's sexuality, then it is associated with mental disorder.

Perhaps you could compare it with learning disability, which by itself is asymptomatic but which is a manifestation of a disturbance of function.

I have cited the definition of 'disorder' as 'disturbance or abnormality of function' before, and been told (see post 322 of "Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?") that this means that a celibate priest or someone using contraception has a disturbance of function, so is similarly disordered. I don't agree. The priest in Shaker's example is attracted to the opposite sex but can choose to be celibate or not, whereas a homosexual is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex whether he wants to be or not, and therefore can be said to have an abnormality or disturbance (ie disorder) of sexual orientation.

Having read through parts of a commentary on the Mental Health act 2007 which amended the 1983 Act, I've seen this:
"Disorders or disabilities of the brain are not mental disorders unless (and only to the extent that) they give rise to a disorder of the mind as well."
(see point 17 here:
http://tinyurl.com/zwfq7qy )
Point 24 says that "sexual orientation (homo, hetero, and bi-sexuality) alone is not regarded as a mental disorder".

Now I may be barking up the wrong tree, but the point of the Mental Health Act is largely to determine the parameters within which someone can be detained for treatment without their consent (see points 4 and 5). It is in this context that homosexuality on its own (i.e. without the presence of mental disorder such as anxiety, depression, feeling uncomfortable about his/her homosexuality etc) is not regarded as a mental disorder.

The "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-2015-WHO Version for 2015" states simply, "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder" without any further explanation as to why.

So it is apparent to me that the term, 'mental disorder' is linked with the possibility that a condition might need to be treated under compulsion.

I note that, in point 17, the phrase, 'disorders or disabilities of the brain' are differentiated from 'disorders of the mind'.

[Gordon]

I have read what the WHO and Mental Health Act 2007 says about homosexuality. They state that it is not by itself a psychiatric disorder. However, when accompanied by symptoms such as depression or low self esteem caused by things like discrimination or dissatisfaction with one's sexuality, then it is associated with mental disorder.

Is it? Are you a suitably qualified health professional who has the knowledge and expertise to say this? If not, then you are just adding your unqualified personal opinion, which can be dismissed as irrelevant.

Perhaps you could compare it with learning disability, which by itself is asymptomatic but which is a manifestation of a disturbance of function.

Perhaps you could, but the question is are you qualified to make this comparison?

I have cited the definition of 'disorder' as 'disturbance or abnormality of function' before, and been told (see post 322 of "Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?") that this means that a celibate priest or someone using contraception has a disturbance of function, so is similarly disordered. I don't agree. The priest in Shaker's example is attracted to the opposite sex but can choose to be celibate or not, whereas a homosexual is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex whether he wants to be or not, and therefore can be said to have an abnormality or disturbance (ie disorder) of sexual orientation.

Not according to what the relevant health professionals think, as you noted earlier - so you are, quite simply, wrong.

Having read through parts of a commentary on the Mental Health act 2007 which amended the 1983 Act, I've seen this:
"Disorders or disabilities of the brain are not mental disorders unless (and only to the extent that) they give rise to a disorder of the mind as well."
(see point 17 here:
http://tinyurl.com/zwfq7qy )
Point 24 says that "sexual orientation (homo, hetero, and bi-sexuality) alone is not regarded as a mental disorder".

Now I may be barking up the wrong tree, but the point of the Mental Health Act is largely to determine the parameters within which someone can be detained for treatment without their consent (see points 4 and 5). It is in this context that homosexuality on its own (i.e. without the presence of mental disorder such as anxiety, depression, feeling uncomfortable about his/her homosexuality etc) is not regarded as a mental disorder.

The "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-2015-WHO Version for 2015" states simply, "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder" without any further explanation as to why.

So it is apparent to me that the term, 'mental disorder' is linked with the possibility that a condition might need to be treated under compulsion.

I note that, in point 17, the phrase, 'disorders or disabilities of the brain' are differentiated from 'disorders of the mind'.

Spud, I suggest you give up the amateur psychiatry nonsense and accept that homosexuality is not a 'disorder' of any sort: you are quite simply wrong.

Your attempts to factor in other elements to justify the 'disorder' claim is not only a disingenuous representation of the medical science but it leads to the equally silly conclusion that heterosexual people who may have a propensity to, say, depression are equally 'disordered' since their sexual orientation is accompanied by other mental health issues.

Again you are wrong Spud, so unless you intend to undertake professional training and gain experience in the field of mental health (as I did in the first half of my career, so I have some relevant practical experience here) I suggest you accept that you are just plain wrong and stop referring to people as 'disordered' on the basis of their sexuality and your obvious ignorance.

[Spud]

I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.

[Aruntraveller]

Spud

What's the normal function of a spoon?

For instance you can measure out flour with a spoon for a cake or bread. At that point it is pretty inedible - but the spoon is serving its normal function.

You can then mix the flour with butter and sugar or maybe water and yeast with the spoon and produce something edible - still serving its normal function.

Then you can eat the cake with the spoon and take pleasure from the food - still serving its normal function.

Finally you can lick it clean and I hear that some people stick it up their arse and derive further pleasure from it - still serving its normal fuction.

Plurality of purpose.

[Gordon]

I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.

Spud

Both society and psychiatry have moved on and you seem, naively, to ignore this so as to maintain a narrative that supports your preferred view: but your preferred view is wrong and is out of step with both current medical thinking and social changes (good ones too) over the last few decades. I'm hoping the penny is dropping for you on this.

'Disorder' is not only plain wrong it doesn't 'describe it accurately' as you seem to think: 'disorder' misrepresents and demeans people and sees people just in terms of their sexuality, which dehumanises them since people are far more than their genitalia. I think you need to review your thinking on this, which doesn't imply you need to abandon your faith since it seems many of your fellow Christian think very differently on this matter, so perhaps you should speak to some of them. 

[Brownie]

I was in the process of replying to your previous post Spud and then saw that Gordon had written:

Your attempts to factor in other elements to justify the 'disorder' claim is not only a disingenuous representation of the medical science but it leads to the equally silly conclusion that heterosexual people who may have a propensity to, say, depression are equally 'disordered' since their sexual orientation is accompanied by other mental health issues.

which was what I was intending to say but Gordon got there first and said it more concisely.

I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.

Plenty of us have tried to explain this to you Spud so I'm not going to go over old ground.  However I would like to know why you are so obsessed with this particular issue, to the extent that you are researching it.  It is more than a natural interest on your part.

[Bubbles]

I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.

Very few people are.

Years ago they used to force treatment on people who were homosexual, purely because they were homosexual.

Alan Turing for example was chemically castrated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Things have moved on, thank goodness, and we no longer do that.

Now homosexuals only get treated if they have mental problems and can't cope, just like heterosexuals.

But this is because of an issue an individual has, not because they are homosexual.

Although it might cause them to be depressed depending on their background and experiences.

If memory serves me correctly the only reason for treating someone without their consent under the mental health act , now is either they are a danger to the public or themselves and applies regardless of someone's sexuality.

In the past the act was used not just to imprison homosexual people,  but also single mothers and a few were thrown into mental asylums and shockingly forgotten.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sin-and-the-single-mother-the-history-of-lone-parenthood-7782370.html

Just because they thought these things right in the past, doesn't mean they were.

The only time a homosexual needs to be referred to a doctor because of their homosexuality is if it is causing them a big issue and depression. Given there is still prejudice out there, it's not surprising.


Plus, what about non sexual people?

Not everyone is that fussed with sex, with anyone of any sex.

Should they all be carted off and forcibly treated?


With homosexuals I could understand that someone might find is hard to cope with being " different" along with pressures and what others expect them to be.

I don't doubt some people come apart at the seams.

Hopefully nowadays doctors would be more understanding and would be looking to offer them whatever support they could to come to terms with themselves.

Just like they would with any other depressed or vunerable person.


The point is though, that a happy homosexual doesn't need treatment anymore than a heterosexual.

The only time I would recommend " going to the doctor" for a homosexual would be the same for a heterosexual, if they were in mental anguish which they were unable to resolve or cope with.

🌹

[Leonard James]

I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.

The normal function of the mouth is to eat and drink. Do you consider kissing an abnormal function?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Any religion is born largely for the local population. The religious leader has only a local influence (these days it is a little different)  and all the personal and social behavior the leader prescribes is meant for the local people and based on their local issues and problems.   

The leader is also concerned mainly with the  stability, progress and future of that specific group to whom he is talking at that time. They probably did not know of and did not care for people in other parts of the world.  Its a different matter that over some generations the group migrates elsewhere and then tries to force its memes and behavior patterns on the others. Normal human behavior again....can't be helped.

Forbidding homosexual behavior is quite obviously meant to safe guard the local population and its perpetuation.  If for whatever reason at that point of time, people found homosexuality growing or people getting influenced by local youths into homosexual behavior,  it would be quite understandable that they would want these people to be out of their society. 

In today's world it is quite different. For one thing, we are globalized and local populations do not feel threatened about the extinction of their population, their culture and way of life. Secondly, the huge population  explosion is in itself becoming a threat to social order and cohesion. People are refusing to have children (maybe just one) in many societies. In this changed climate, homosexuality may not be perceived as a threat to human perpetuation.

So...the situations under which homosexuals were persecuted in ancient times... and today when they are not seen as a threat are quite different. What is the point in arguing about these  two completely different scenarios?! 

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Stranger]

I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.

In what way do you judge 'normal'? As has been pointed out before; a great deal of heterosexual sex involves using sex organs in ways that don't accord to your narrow and restrictive view of 'normal'.

[Bubbles]

In what way do you judge 'normal'? As has been pointed out before; a great deal of heterosexual sex involves using sex organs in ways that don't accord to your narrow and restrictive view of 'normal'.

Yes and the chances are they would be considered wrong too.

Master bation  is considered wrong by some Christian / groups too.

[Sriram]

Yes and the chances are they would be considered wrong too.

Master bation  is considered wrong by some Christian / groups too.

As I have said above, the scenario in ancient times was quite different. Having babies was very important.  Any behavior that prevented that was wrong and 'sinful'.

In today's world...masturbation, homosexuality, using either end of the alimentary canal for sex....would all get a thumbs up. Not a sin at all. Good job! Anything to prevent people having babies! 

[Leonard James]

Morning Sriram,

So...the situations under which homosexuals were persecuted in ancient times... and today when they are not seen as a threat are quite different. What is the point in arguing about these  two completely different scenarios?!

The point is that many people are still locked in the past and refuse to accept the 'normality' of the modern world. They must be reeducated, and that is what we are trying to do.

[Owlswing]

Masturbation  is considered wrong by some Christian / groups too.

Years ago, when I was still following the Christian path, I attended a youth group run by our vicar designed to show how Christian ethics and belkiefs fitted into the world outside the church.

One member of the group, during a discussion on whether sin was relevant to the general population outside the church, asked if the viar conbsidewred that, in the outside world, maturbation was still seen as a sin.

His responce has remained with me ever since - "If that is correct then the entire population of the world both outside and inside the church are sinners, divided into two groups - the wankers and the liars.

[Sriram]

Morning Sriram,
 

The point is that many people are still locked in the past and refuse to accept the 'normality' of the modern world. They must be reeducated, and that is what we are trying to do.

Homosexuality is not 'normal' even today. Only thing is that it does not pose a threat to the general global population.

Some small communities that may be facing extinction....may even today consider homosexuality within their group as a threat and therefore as a 'sin'. 

[Aruntraveller]

Homosexuality is not 'normal' even today. Only thing is that it does not pose a threat to the general global population.

Some small communities that may be facing extinction....may even today consider homosexuality within their group as a threat and therefore as a 'sin'.

It is a normally and naturally occurring variation in human sexuality. Just like left handedness is a normally occurring variation, and ginger hair is a normally occurring variation. There is nothing not normal about it.

As also there is nothing not normal about stupidity.

[Owlswing]

It is a normally and naturally occurring variation in human sexuality. Just like left handedness is a normally occurring variation, and ginger hair is a normally occurring variation. There is nothing not normal about it.

As also there is nothing not normal about stupidity.

TV

I would have to (kind of) disagree with your late statement above.

Even the most intelligent can demonstrate 'stupidity' in one form or another at some time or another. People, even on this forum, who demonstrate extremely high levels of intelligence come out, sometimes, with the most stupid comments. Stupid as defined by members of the audience.

On the subject under discussion there are extremely intelligent Christians and non-Christians who are making 'stupid' statements with regard to the accepted status of both homosexuality and homosexuals within modern society.

When I lived in Kings Cross (Sydney - their equivalent of London's Soho) one of the first questions a newcomer would be asked was 'do you shake hands. hug or kiss' when introduced to someone of the same sex. It did not take long for your answer to percolate around the denizens of the cross of both sexes and would be accepted and practised by denizens of both sexes. That is, if you answer was 'kiss', you would be greeted with a kiss each time you met someone for the first or the umpteenth time.

Walk a hundred yards outside the Cross and you would expect a thumping if you repeated the process with a non-Crossy.

The mix of the intelligent and the not-so was roughly the same for both areas but the level of stupidity, regrettably, could also be the same, though not necessarily on the same subjects.

It sometimes seems to me that the same applies here.