Being Homosexual and Religous Sentiment :p

[Dancing David]

In another thread a poster who I generaly find enlightening and entertaining has made the proposition that mental illness does not exist, except for maybe schizophrenia. The other mental illnesses, despite the fact that they exist in behavioral terms, do not exist, because they are solely defined by a subjective experience, never mind that Skinner set the world of psychology on it's ear, and allowed for the study of external and internal behaviors, persistant moods do not exist, and because there isn't a test for depression, it doesn't exist.

I think that this is comparable to being gay , lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The main event is the behaviors , internal and external that allow a person to define themselves as celibate,homo, hetero, bi or trans. But the experience is solely subjective, which allows for the 'down low syndrome' where a man who mainly engages in sex with other men, can claim that they are not 'gay', they just like sex with men.

I am using this political topic to point out what I feel is the fallacy of the other poster's argument, there are internal and external behaviors that allow someone to judge the sexuality of another person, which may be homophobic or not. So while the experience of sexual attraction is purely subjective, being homo sexual is a useful term, as it is defined by a set of behaviors.

It is not like believing in god or going to church, it is like being attracted to the same gender and engaging in same sex copulation.

So saying that being gay is comparable to believing in god seems silly to me.

Thank you for your time and patience. What do you say?

 

[Katana]

I echo your feelings for the most part about the poster that you mention. However, I fear that you may raise concerns about likening homosexuality to mental illness. Somehow I hear that coming.

I agree that what are purely subjective experiences or symptoms can translate into a specific "diagnosis", again being nervous to use that term because sexuality has been raised and people become very sensitive to that. Let us call it a condition then? Oh, hell.

In other words, I think I hear where you're going, but it could go south...Then again, with this poster, it most often does.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations, a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.

 

[stamenflicker]

In another thread a poster who I generaly find enlightening and entertaining has made the proposition that mental illness does not exist, except for maybe schizophrenia. The other mental illnesses, despite the fact that they exist in behavioral terms, do not exist, because they are solely defined by a subjective experience, never mind that Skinner set the world of psychology on it's ear, and allowed for the study of external and internal behaviors, persistant moods do not exist, and because there isn't a test for depression, it doesn't exist.

I think that this is comparable to being gay , lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The main event is the behaviors , internal and external that allow a person to define themselves as celibate,homo, hetero, bi or trans. But the experience is solely subjective, which allows for the 'down low syndrome' where a man who mainly engages in sex with other men, can claim that they are not 'gay', they just like sex with men.

I am using this political topic to point out what I feel is the fallacy of the other poster's argument, there are internal and external behaviors that allow someone to judge the sexuality of another person, which may be homophobic or not. So while the experience of sexual attraction is purely subjective, being homo sexual is a useful term, as it is defined by a set of behaviors.

It is not like believing in god or going to church, it is like being attracted to the same gender and engaging in same sex copulation.

So saying that being gay is comparable to believing in god seems silly to me.

Thank you for your time and patience. What do you say?

Aww, you can name me, I won't be offended.

I think the analogy doesn't work as well due to physically manifested evidences. For example, as young 14 year old in the school gym locker room, I didn't get an erection while showering with the other boys. But I accept that maybe some boys might. Lord knows as a 14 year old boy, were I to be showering in the girls locker room I might poke an eye out.

Religious sentiment exists in another place
namely the place of the mind... where incidentally, "disorders" also reside.

 

[Katana]

Aww, you can name me, I won't be offended.

I think the analogy doesn't work as well due to physically manifested evidences. For example, as young 14 year old in the school gym locker room, I didn't get an erection while showering with the other boys. But I accept that maybe some boys might. Lord knows as a 14 year old boy, were I to be showering in the girls locker room I might poke an eye out.

Religious sentiment exists in another place
namely the place of the mind... where incidentally, "disorders" also reside.

No. It works very well. In any society where homosexuals are marginalized, you will have many living heterosexual lives. Outwardly, behaviorally they appear heterosexual. This neither makes them any less than what they really are nor does it diminish their constant desire to live their lives differently.

 

[brooklyn44]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations, a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.

This is a very interesting take, I like it.
As for the fear of homosexuality being linked with mental illness, I, too, can see this happening.
This behavior vs, ideation is very tricky.

 

[Dancing David]

I echo your feelings for the most part about the poster that you mention. However, I fear that you may raise concerns about likening homosexuality to mental illness. Somehow I hear that coming.

I agree that what are purely subjective experiences or symptoms can translate into a specific "diagnosis", again being nervous to use that term because sexuality has been raised and people become very sensitive to that. Let us call it a condition then? Oh, hell.

In other words, I think I hear where you're going, but it could go south...Then again, with this poster, it most often does.

I am not comparing homosexuality to mental illness as a mental illness, but as an analogy for subjective states with observable behaviors.

Goodness, I did not intend to imply that homosexuality is a mental illness. Being a neo conservative, I am not sure about that!

 

[Dancing David]

However, sexual orientation is not determined by behavior. Hence, a heterosexual person can have sex with someone of the same sex without suddenly changing orientations, a homosexual person or an asexual could have sex with the opposite sex to have children or for whatever reason, and not have to change orientations.

Sexual orientation is determined by sexual attraction, not sexual behavior. Judging by behavior would make every child asexual until their first sexual encounter, where they magically change orientation; behavior would mean that all those who have taken vows of chastity are asexual regardless of how they actually feel about other people.

Internal behaviors are thoughts and emotions, they may not be intentional like motor activity but they are still behaviors in the modern psychological usage.

 

[Dancing David]

Aww, you can name me, I won't be offended.

I think the analogy doesn't work as well due to physically manifested evidences. For example, as young 14 year old in the school gym locker room, I didn't get an erection while showering with the other boys. But I accept that maybe some boys might. Lord knows as a 14 year old boy, were I to be showering in the girls locker room I might poke an eye out.

Religious sentiment exists in another place
namely the place of the mind... where incidentally, "disorders" also reside.

Which is where all words and concepts exist, there is no diabetes or heart disaease, there are only conditions which appear to exist in the physical world that we label as such. Gravity does not exist, it is a human concept that labels the apparent behavior of physical bodies in the apparent universe.

Disorder, gravity, dog , tree, they are all words.

 

[Skeptic]

The other mental illnesses, despite the fact that they exist in behavioral terms, do not exist, because they are solely defined by a subjective experience,

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

 

[l0rca]

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

Well according to him, however you read it is solely defined as a subjective experience. So maybe you are the only one.

 

[Dancing David]

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

Only he could answer, the arguments are rather circular and the line moves alot, only Stamen can say what he meant, and he won't give his conclusions to debate.

Basicaly he says that physical illness has physical signs but that mental illness is solely subjective, but then the line moves at times if you mention physical disorders that are diagnosed from subjective criteria.

 

[Mid]

Only he could answer, the arguments are rather circular and the line moves alot, only Stamen can say what he meant, and he won't give his conclusions to debate.

Basicaly he says that physical illness has physical signs but that mental illness is solely subjective, but then the line moves at times if you mention physical disorders that are diagnosed from subjective criteria.

Could you give a link to the relevant thread and/or posts?

 

[Cuddles]

Am I the only one who reads that claim to literally mean, "there's no mental illness, it's all in our head!"?

Where else would we expect to find mental illness?

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I thought it would come from my title, here is the thread, including all my rude and excessive behavior.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59878

 

[Mid]

Sorry, I thought it would come from my title, here is the thread, including all my rude and excessive behavior.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59878

Doh! on my part and thanks

 

[stamenflicker]

Only he could answer, the arguments are rather circular and the line moves alot, only Stamen can say what he meant, and he won't give his conclusions to debate.

I've more than once given specific debating points. And I've also made it clear that you're dealing with "belief," when it comes to mental illness. You can argue that I'm dealing with belief in my sexual orientation, and that's fine. But I have my erections as evidence, not a collection of moods to consider.

 

[stamenflicker]

Basicaly he says that physical illness has physical signs but that mental illness is solely subjective, but then the line moves at times if you mention physical disorders that are diagnosed from subjective criteria.

That's right. The line moves.

The line has always moved, especially in psychology. From hysteria, to Fugues, to MPD. From homosexuality in the DSM to out of the DSM.

Classic pot calling the kettle black.

And yet you maintain that somehow a "mood" defined by a psychologist carries more weight than one defined by your bartender or your priest. That's the illogic. And that's the point of the thread.

Your evidence? Surveys. Subjective report. Observation of behaviors. Ad Nauseum.

All of that says you can build a "science" around whatever mood you want.

 

[Dancing David]

I've more than once given specific debating points. And I've also made it clear that you're dealing with "belief," when it comes to mental illness. You can argue that I'm dealing with belief in my sexual orientation, and that's fine. But I have my erections as evidence, not a collection of moods to consider.

Yes but erections are not indicative of sexual orientation, it is a more fluid concept than that Stamen, because it is based upon a concept of preference. I have erections when I dream, does that mean I have a sexual orientation of dreamer?

You can have erections when you have no higher brain function at all, how do you determine the sexual orientation then? Or you can hav erections when your penis is not connected to your brain through paralysis, what would determine orientation in that case?

 

[Dancing David]

That's right. The line moves.

The line has always moved, especially in psychology. From hysteria, to Fugues, to MPD. From homosexuality in the DSM to out of the DSM.

Classic pot calling the kettle black.

And yet you maintain that somehow a "mood" defined by a psychologist carries more weight than one defined by your bartender or your priest. That's the illogic. And that's the point of the thread.

Your evidence? Surveys. Subjective report. Observation of behaviors. Ad Nauseum.

All of that says you can build a "science" around whatever mood you want.

Uhm, Stamen the line has always moved in medicine, you are the one wearing blinders, the line moves in all forms of medicine, it always has and always will.

You are aware the the pratice of diagnosis does not rely upon tests?

If a person comes into the ED, and they complain of intense chest pain, difficulty breathing, are pale and sweating. Should the doctor wait for test or give them nitreo on the spot?

What about GERD?

You ignore the fact that all medicine is based upon subjective reporting, tests are supportive but you can't always run them. There are areas where there aren't tests.

Say I went to my doctors and i stated, whenever this particular [plant is in bloom, my nose becomes congested, my eyes water, and I am very tired, Should the doctor say that I might have allegies and recomend an anti histamine, or should they wait to treat me util i have gone through a long series of skin tests to detrmine through testing that I appear to have reactive allergies?

You are singling out mental health treatment for the general way medicine is practised.