dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Real Programmers Eat Quiche) (06/14/84)
Sorry, Jeff____________________________________________________________________
Jeff Sargent would have us think that homosexuality is a mental ill-
ness. He recommends a book that agrees with him.
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 view that everyone is heterosexual at heart isn't supported by the
findings of psychologists - the ones who approach this issue scientifically.
The prevailing theory - formulated by Kinsey of the famous Kinsey studies and
supported by several studies since - is that humans' sexual orientation exists
on an ambisexual continuum. This accounts for bisexuality, heterosexuality
(with a few homosexual encounters here and there), etc.
<_Jym_>
._________________________________________________________.
.__! Jym Dyer <> Software Craftsworker for DEC <> Nashua, NH !__.
.__! Arpanet: dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA <> E-Net: VAXUUM::DYER !__.
__! Usenet: ...{allegra|decvax|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer !__
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Statements made here are my own, not necessarily |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|'s.
`-`-`-`-'-'-'-'pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/20/84)
[Jym Dyer:] > Jeff Sargent would have us think that homosexuality is a mental ill- >ness. He recommends a book that agrees with him. > 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 view that everyone is heterosexual at heart isn't supported by the >findings of psychologists - the ones who approach this issue scientifically. >The prevailing theory - formulated by Kinsey of the famous Kinsey studies and >supported by several studies since - is that humans' sexual orientation exists >on an ambisexual continuum. This accounts for bisexuality, heterosexuality >(with a few homosexual encounters here and there), etc. > <_Jym_> I would agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Moral issues cannot be reduced to a matter of mental health. The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue. I just don't understand how the contention that homosexuals are born--not made--is really supported by scientific data. It is certainly not in the same category with the evidence that women or blacks are born and not made. Has science demonstrated that sexual preference is in our genes? I don't think so. (The idea seems really weird since the gene would have to be transmitted by heterosexual practice.) Yet from what I have seen the Gay Rights Movement is trying to place the sexual preference in the same boat with women's rights and racial discrimination issues. When they do this they go beyond claiming the right to believing in, and practicing, homosexuality; they claim the right to impose on others the belief that homosexuality is right. Not only will a dissenting opinion not hold, it will be actively supressed (e.g. by including it in the Affirmative Action agenda). It seems to me that what social science has shown is that each individual has the capacity to develop in a variety of ways concerning their sexual preference. I can even accept the notion that the individual makeup of some may bias them toward developing one preferance over the other. But demonstrating the possibility of such bias through psychology, or whatever, does not answer the moral question of whether or not homosexual practice is right, or whether the sexual tendencies in these individuals are indelible (like their gender or race would be). 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. Should we honor their sexual behaviour with consenting minors? (This may not be far off. There is a group (name escapes me now) that is actively trying to influence the sex education cirriculum in the public schools. Thier motto is, "Sex before eight, or it's too late". -- Not with my kid you don't.) It seems to me that the sexual preference issue is going to get pulled down to the young child's level along with the increasing pressure being put on children to make decisions about sexual activity in general. If sexual preference is largely a learned moral behaviour (rather than a 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. I've seen the reasoning used here that the fact that there are "repentant" homosexuals only goes to prove that those individuals were not natural homosexuals. That does'nt make sense to me. Good scientific theorems need to have some predictive value. You don't get that from making post hoc assumptions. On what basis can the sexual preference of an individual be predicted, or even determined at the earliest stages of their development? I'll probably be sorry I posted this. But I am trying to express my opinion honestly. Please send all responses that you want me to see by mail. News delivery to cbscc is not very dependable. Thanks. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world..." (John 1:9)
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/23/84)
OK Paul Dubuc, why is heterosexuality good? Since all you heterosexuals
out there seem to be asking homosexuals to justify the fact that they are
not bad, I'd like to turn the question back to you. What makes you think
that you can put yourself in a position of righteousness and demand of
others that they justify their preferences without you ever justifying yours.
You make an analogy between pedophilia and homosexuality. I will answer your
question on why I think pedophilia is bad. First of all, pedophilia is the
wrong word. pedophilia means loving children. I don't see what could be
wrong with that if the children are willing throughout but it is very hard
to know if they are willing or not. When one thinks of pedophilia one is
usually thinking of rape as "incest" also seems to have taken on the meaning
of rape by a member of one's immediate family when actually all it means is
sexual relationship between members of the same family. Anyway when children
are involved it is very hard to determine the degree of willingness of the
child as the adult is more powerful than the child most often (no matter what
certain authors would like people to believe). That is why I think pedophilia
incestuous or not, is dangerous: it leaves the door open to a lot of abuse
as the two participants are not of equal strength. (Actually an analogy between
pedophilia and heterosexuality would make much more sense, as partners in
heterosexual relationships are often of unequal strength, which leaves the
door open to a lot of abuse - and many people do go through that door)
Homosexuality is different (even though some people like to lump them
together for shock effect). The homosexuality being discussed here is
between consenting adults. It is a cliche, but is the main point of it.
Why is it "wrong" for two consenting adults of the same sex to have
sexual relationships? why not? since you are claiming that it isn't,
the onus is on you to prove that it isn't. The position of homosexuals
on the net have been so far, that it is not right or wrong either way,
i.e they are not putting a moral judgement on the act. So why are you?
explain yourself, tell us what you base your moral judgement on in the
first place, so that we don't get into pointless discussions. If it is
on a certain book, then how do you know this book is right?
(this is all net.religion stuff it seems. so what is it doing in net.motss?
yeah it seems that once again net.motss is turning into a place where
homosexuals have to defend their preferences)
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleysdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/24/84)
I am going to address only one point in Paul Dubuc's article right now,
though there are many points which deserve a response. But it seems to me
that this one is the crux of the matter, and the stumbling block for many
people who label themselves Christian. I am taking up this response,
not because I feel the need to justify myself before anyone, but because
I really am trying to understand what is at the basis of what I view as
extremely irrational, unfounded behavior.
>The way I see it homosexual practice is largely a moral issue.
I really do not understand this. Really not. In fact it sounds just a bit
bizarre to me. Sort of like "eating oysters is largely a moral issue."
Human relations (of any sort) are grounded in the moral arena, but what is
so special about homosexual acts in and of themselves which entitles them
to being singled out for moral notice? It seems to me that there is only
one reason for this attitude, namely, the misinterpretation of the Genesis
and Levitical texts and some of the Pauline letters adopted over the last
700 years by the Christian Church. At least one knows where such people
are coming from: it's just a variant of "the Bible says so, so it's true."
Now, such people don't cotton well to being told about the subtleties of
the texts, and the contexts in which they appear, nor do they bother to
carry forth other Scriptural proscriptions against certain behaviors. I
always liked the one about it being easier for a camel to pass through an
eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh--you
mean that wasn't REALLY what was being said. You mean I need to understand
the CONTEXT of Christ's teachings. Uh-huh.
Anyway, I want to know whether those Christians who feel, as Paul Dubuc does,
that homosexuality is a "moral" issue, feel that the moral argument lies
entirely upon what you perceive Scripture to be saying. That is, because
you read the Bible as condemning such actions, homosexuality there, and
there alone, takes upon itself a moral dimension. In that case, how do
you deal with a pluralistic, secular society which is not Bible-based?
What right do you have to enforce your conceptions of morality upon those
members of society who do not share your reading of Scripture?
And if you feel that there is more to morality and homosexuality than
simply the meagre, disputable allusions in the Bible, then by all means
state it! I have never once heard an argument "against" homosexuality
that did not collapse under scrutiny, and which was not ultimately
founded upon misinformation about gay people or questionable assumptions.
As many of the readers will undoubtedly point out, this discussion is
not really necessary, since gay people will continue to exist quite happily
whether or not they receive the approbation of the Fundamentalist
religionists. I am doing this more as a favor to them, so that they
can get their opinions stated clearly once and for all here. It should
go without saying that this is not an invitation to inappropriate behavior
in this newsgroup, and also, the other readers should feel free to speak up
if they think that this discussion isn't worth pursuing here. It's obviously
interesting enough to me here, right now.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA