keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) (06/22/84)
[Chomp, chomp CHOMP!!!] > Sorry, Jeff, but that view isn't supported by psychology and psychiatry > at large. The American Psychiatric Association voted in 1974 that homosexual- > ity is *not* mental illness. (There was dissent, but it didn't take.) The APA voting on something does not make it so. We know so little about the workings of the human mind that there just isn't any way at all anyone could conclusively make that statement. The fact that they voted on it; hell, is anyone voting on the wavelength of light these days? You don't vote on "science", you're either right, wrong, or you just don't know. For support, I suggest that the gentle reader compare a few of the current views on psychology that are floating around. Don't even go to rolfing or some of the more offbeat ones. The mainstream is so clogged with viewpoints (viewpoints that differ to the extreme) it isn't funny. At this point, psychology isn't science, it's fuzzy like a rug. > It seems > to me that the same sociological evidence that would give intrinsic > rights to homosexuals would also give them to those who claim to have > been born with pedophilic tendancies. Bingo. That's absolutely correct. And there is nothing "wrong" with that. And to those born with tendencies to eat small animals alive. (Oysters?) Each society determines a code of behavior; each society condemns the other societies' behavior as "wrong". Currently, the definition of "wrong" in our society is changing with respect to homosexuality, or at least appears to be changing. I have no problem with that; I have a large problem with those people who wish to say that gay rights are inherently "right"; that women's liberation is inherently "right"; that black rights are "inherently" right. > genetically determined condition) then kids will learn that "anything goes" > as far as sex is concerned long before they have the capacity to deal > with, or even assess, the consequences of their decisions. Not disagreeing here, possible thought that until very recently "children" had kids by 13 and were dead by 25. Think that your feeling that "anything goes" is wrong colors this thought. Now where *did* I put that hamster? Keith ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/24/84)
>> Sorry, Jeff, but that view isn't supported by psychology and psychiatry >> at large. The American Psychiatric Association voted in 1974 that homosexual- >> ity is *not* mental illness. (There was dissent, but it didn't take.) >The APA voting on something does not make it so. We know so little about the >workings of the human mind that there just isn't any way at all anyone could >conclusively make that statement. The fact that they voted on it; hell, is >anyone voting on the wavelength of light these days? You don't vote on >"science", you're either right, wrong, or you just don't know. For support, >I suggest that the gentle reader compare a few of the current views on >psychology that are floating around. Don't even go to rolfing or some of the >more offbeat ones. The mainstream is so clogged with viewpoints (viewpoints >that differ to the extreme) it isn't funny. At this point, psychology isn't >science, it's fuzzy like a rug. But, you see, psychology will NEVER be science, and "mental illness" isn't quantifiable the way the wavelength of light is. It is not a "thing", it is simply a classification of behavior, here the most broad category that one could imagine, one that separates behavior into "good" and "bad". The APA wasn't operating in a vacuum when it voted to strike homosexuality from this classification. It was forming an opinion based on the emerging mainstream view of sexual orientation and what constitutes mental illness. It is valid to ask the question: "If an individual is well-adjusted, emotionally mature, behaves properly, is well-integrated into his/her environment, and this person happens to be gay, is it USEFUL to describe that person as "mentally ill?" You can see how the APA answered this question. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) (06/26/84)
> But, you see, psychology will NEVER be science, and "mental illness" isn't > quantifiable the way the wavelength of light is. It is not a "thing", it > is simply a classification of behavior, here the most broad category that > one could imagine, one that separates behavior into "good" and "bad". First, throw out the word psychology; Webst. 7th, defines psychology as "the science of mind and behavior." Let's stick with mental illness. It's unclear that mental illness can never be quantified. Epilepsy has made steady progress from being a mis-understood, demonically orchestrated bizarreness to being a medically treatable illness. It seems reasonable to assume that medical progress will continue. > The APA wasn't operating in a vacuum when it voted to strike homosexuality > from this classification. It was forming an opinion based on the emerging > mainstream view of sexual orientation and what constitutes mental illness. I'll agree that the APA was not operating in a vacuum and may very well be the most qualified organization to make such a determination, I think the evidence on either side is very poor. We know very little about how the mind works, let alone how it interacts with society. Whether it's mainstream is certainly arguable, especially as the country rides this back to the basics wavefront. > It is valid to ask the question: "If an individual is well-adjusted, > emotionally mature, behaves properly, is well-integrated into his/her > environment, and this person happens to be gay, is it USEFUL to describe > that person as "mentally ill?" You can see how the APA answered this > question. I'm not sure that's okay. I'm also not sure it's not. If you want to reject all absolutes that's fine. It's like that line about being judged by a jury of your "peers". Where are they gonna find 12 people for Chuckles Manson? You're saying that my mental health is solely dependent on what society I am currently hanging out in. And, I have to figure that someone who is gay now passed through a *serious* period of mental illness a few years back. I don't like soft answers. The only real advantage I can see to that argument is that the stop-capital-punishment people really lose... no one is ever insane, just not in step with society. Countin' flowers on the wall, that don't bother me at all, Keith ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith p.s. Just out of curiosity, though, who *is* going to define "emotionally mature" etc. etc.? p.p.s. This whole issue reminds me of some of the UNIX tools around. You know, a great idea (i.e. mental illness and treatment) that got special-cased to death. Damn, but if every day ain't a holiday, and every meal a banquet!
dyer@dec-vaxuum.UUCP (06/27/84)
Re: Notes on Last Few Submissions______________________________________________ Mental Illness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> The American Psychiatric Association voted in 1974 that homosexuality is >> *not* mental illness. (There was dissent, but it didn't take.) > The APA voting on something does not make it so. We know so little about the > workings of the human mind that there just isn't any way at all anyone could > conclusively make that statement. I agree; but I have to ask what one should consider "conclusive." Jeff Sargent stated that homosexuality is a mental illness; I posted a response to inform him and others that his statement is not supported by the science that defines mental illness. But, you say, it isn't a science: > The mainstream is so clogged with viewpoints (viewpoints that differ to the > extreme) it isn't funny. At this point, psychology isn't science, it's fuzzy > like a rug. Psychology *is* a science; a young science that hasn't found a paradigm yet. The lack of a paradigm doesn't make it *not* a science because modern psychology generally uses the scientific method. If you're going to call some- thing a non-science because it lacks a fully-operational paradigm, you might as well consider physics a non-science. [For a good understanding of what I'm talking about with science and paradigms, check out Thomas Kuhn's _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.] Rather than quibbling about whether or not psychology _per_se_ is valid or not, perhaps we should be debating the specific evidence that would indicate that homosexuality is not mental illness. Start with the Kinsey report. Intrinsically Pedophilic ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> It seems to me that the same sociological evidence that would give intrinsic >> rights to homosexuals would also give them to those who claim to have been >> born with pedophilic tendancies (sic). > Bingo. That's absolutely correct. It is? Just what kind of sociological evidence are you two referring to? References, please. I've noticed a tendency to lump homosexuality together with sex with animals and children. Note that there's one fundamental difference being over- looked: homosexuality _per_se_ involves mature, consenting adults. There's a definite difference between sex that involves a fellow adult and sex that in- volves an easy-to-manipulate object. Inherent Rights ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I have a large problem with those people who wish to say that gay rights are > inherently "right"; that women's liberation is inherently "right"; that black > rights are "inherently" right. Yes, you do seem to have a problem. Homosexuals, like women and black people, are humans and as such are bestowed with the same equal and inalienable rights as any human. If you wish to challenge their rights, then you should also challenge the rights of all humans - a challenge that would probably be- long in net.philosophy or net.politics. <_Jym_> Jym Dyer dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA ...{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer Statements are my own, and not necessarily those of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|.
keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) (07/02/84)
>>> It seems to me that the same sociological evidence that would give intrinsic >>> rights to homosexuals would also give them to those who claim to have been >>> born with pedophilic tendancies (sic). >> Bingo. That's absolutely correct. > It is? Just what kind of sociological evidence are you two referring > to? References, please. > I've noticed a tendency to lump homosexuality together with sex with > animals and children. Note that there's one fundamental difference being > overlooked: homosexuality _per_se_ involves mature, consenting adults. > There's a definite difference between sex that involves a fellow adult and > sex that involves an easy-to-manipulate object. Until recently, homosexuality was *correctly* lumped together with sex with animals; the word was perversion, I believe. What we're saying is that sociological evidence *as a class* of evidence has nothing to do with the discussion; example time: if I construct a society made up of the chaps that are into child sex the exact same logic can be used to justify it as *is* being used to justify homosexuality, i.e. well, everyone agrees that it's okay, the people that are doing it are well-adjusted (by our standards) etc. etc. Again, I'm *not* attacking homosexuality; just the logic that was used to defend it. (Detect a note of paranoia? There was a joke going around a long time ago: Q: How many women's libbers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!! The winner, and new champeeeeen!!!!! Not that the libbers' sense of humor about themselves has improved, but the gay groups are edging right in there... guess it's tough to be amused by what you really believe to be *wrong*. On the other hand, there's a real thin line between that and taking yourself a little too seriously. And, as we all just noticed, that's my own little prejudice; enough of this bull, back to the *real* issues, heh, heh) >> I have a large problem with those people who wish to say that gay rights are >> inherently "right"; that women's liberation is inherently "right"; that black >> rights are inherently "right". > Yes, you do seem to have a problem. Homosexuals, like women and black > people, are humans and as such are bestowed with the same equal and > inalienable rights as any human. If you wish to challenge their rights, > then you should also challenge the rights of all humans - a challenge that > would probably belong in net.philosophy or net.politics. In this culture, suicide is illegal and immoral, punishable by jail, but war is perfectly OK. In this culture, I can kill animals for the sheer giggles of it all, not to mention (leg-hold) trapping, but I cannot "have sex" with them. In this culture, I cannot have sex with an under 18 year-old, unless I marry her, in which case she can be pretty much any age at all. In this culture, I can (at the right restaurants) consume live animals. (And we're not talking oysters here.) Slavery was implicity written into the original constitution; the musical 1776 had a wonderful (fictional) rendering of this. Let's talk about the word "inherent". Jim, the inalienable rights that you speak of so glibly are evolving on a daily basis. It makes a lot of sense for the gay population to point out that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is pretty stupid. The statment "I have an inherent right to be homosexual" makes no sense at all. Let's also talk about the word "right". As you say, the original comment might better have been posted elsewhere on the net. It was an another attack on the reasoning process, however, not homosexual rights. I am *so* tired of this amazing ability some people have that allows them to blithely inform me that something is (gulp, gosh) "right". Time to tune in the real world, folks. I don't care who you are, what you do, what your sign is, or what you mix avocado dip with after midnight. You don't know what the hell you're doing. (Imagine that said in an even monotone, campers. Honest, I practiced...) There aren't twenty people in the world that you could get to agree on *anything* let alone something important. And, based on this masterpiece of judgement, I automatically, without a second thought, reject any argument that even delicately hints of an inherent rightness. Yeaaaah... enough, of my drivel, thanks for listening, Keith ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/04/84)
I know I promised to refrain from this kind of posting, but, a la Dubuc, believe me! this is the last one!!! (from now on I'll use personal mail?) Bostic's reductio ad absurdam of all ethics is not only crude but absurd: because we wage war or Aztecs plucked hearts out of the devout, morality is arbitrary, nothing more than a culture's prejudices. That's all, folks! There's nothing more to discuss. So, SHUT UP! & don't you think you can exert any claims over me, dammit! (I'm exaggerating a wee bit.) Unfortunately, most of the rest of us don't share such a view of the nature of morals (values). Including most philosophers, jurists, anthropologists, voters, etc. It's hardly self-evident. Given the content and tone of Bostic's submissions, I wonder whether he takes so crude a relativist position because he thinks it's true, or because it provides him such a nifty weapon to flame and tell his victims they ought to thank him for teaching them a thing or two. Years ago, Bostic's point would be called a "shutup ploy", that is, some- thing posing as an argument whose real aim is to supress discussion. I wonder if he considesr himself a proponent of "individual rights"? This is a newish ideology which attacks the notion of "rights" as meaningless and believes law consists only in protecting individuals from interference as long as their activities don't harm others: such protection is called "individual rights". To me it sounds like warmed-over Ayn Randism (for a devastating critique of AR by a sophisticated libertarian, see philosopher Robert Nozick's writings), but I mention it because it seems quite a few gays, including some activists, are now adopting such a position (see Larry Bush's article on the Gay GOP in the recent VILLAGE VOICE). IRism seems to me to involve an extraordinary phobia: a terrific resentment against anyone (or group) holding a moral claim over you. It's a very convenient ideology for members of the victimizing majority: it allows them to discount all those clamoring minorities while at the same time discarding all those superfluous laws and agencies. But someone else will have to discuss this. I'm only dealing in REAL issues from now on (sorry for all the litter I've dumped on this list). "Let me be brief...." : Cheers, Ron Rizzo
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (07/09/84)
"...a terrific resentment of anyoneholding a moral claim over you." Yow, what a wierd charge to level at one's opponents after opening your posting with the old "SHUT UP" laid-to-rest-once-and-for-all. You gotta be careful about that stuff, Ron. We tend to become what we most despise. gtaylor
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/13/84)
Here's another piece of garbage from me: G. Taylor's pathname is so long I despair of reaching him by personal mail. Excuse me, folks, while I tediously flame.... dear G, >> "...a terrific resentment of anyoneholding a moral claim over you." > Yow, what a wierd charge to level at one's opponents after opening > your posting with the old "SHUT UP" laid-to-rest-once-and-for-all. My "charge" wasn't a shutup ploy; it may have been an ad hominem attack (or "personal attack" in Usenet parlance) but it didn't try to masque- rade as a bit of rational argument. It was whatever it was, blatantly. Even as an ad hominem remark, it didn't occur in the middle of an argu- ment to make the argument "work", but was presented as my own impression of what psychologically lies behind the appeal of "individual rights" for a lot of people. Of course it shows my own political bias and it's an unsupported opinion. There's been no lack of that on the net from ALL of us; it only becomes a problem when mere opinion is stated as fact or "attacks" or "shutups" disguise themselves as arguments. Maybe it's not nice to personally criticize others; so, I'm not nice.... If anything, my message tried to get some discussion of the "individual rights" movement started. Pardonnez-moi, but I find your reaction curious: your two messages messages on Boswell (thank you for the compliments) weren't distin- guished by serious discussion of his book (I find it hard to believe you even skimmed it), but were littered with arbitrary opinions and facile arguments attributed to Boswell: >....come to think of it the whole Gnostic thing happened right in >in the middle of the collapse of the Roman Empire. I bet it was >only a reaction to that. The second message culminates in the ridiculous ad hominem charge, baldly stated with no attempt to support it*, that >[Boswell's] chucked out everything in the documents of the early >church that doesn't implicitly or explicitly support practicing >homosexuality as the remnant of a crusty batch of old Judaic poops >cluttering up the cosmopolitan early church. If this is serious criticism, give me Jerry Falwell's rant any day: at least his "praise" isn't back-handed. Maybe you should start taking some of your own advice, G. "Don't fire 'til you see the whites of their eyes!" Ron Rizzo *Unless you consider a quickie quiz administered to relig profs on a cross-campus trot sufficient rebuttal to 10 years of research in a half-dozen languages in archives in Europe & the Middle East.