Below is the exchange with a homosexual agenda activist that arose from this piece of news:
Republican members of the Montana House Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to table a bill that would have legalized homosexuality in the state. Montana code contains an arcane piece of language that outlaws consensual intercourse between homosexuals. It’s a controversial provision, ruled unconstitutional by the Montana Supreme Court in 1997. The olden time law makes homosexuality a felony, punishable by a $50,000 fine and/or up to 10 years in jail.
The bill to strike the unconstitutional law from state code passed the Montana Senate earlier this year on a 38-11 vote. Senate debate on the bill turned emotional for a Helena Democratic Sen. Christine Kaufman, who is a lesbian.
The Montana Family Foundation opposes repeal, seeing it as part of a larger battle to subvert Montana values.
“You are dealing with one of the great moral debates we’ve been having as a society for the past 20 years and will be having for probably at least another 20 years before we finally figure out as a society where we are on this issue,” Laszloffy said, according to John S. Adams of the Great Falls Tribune.
Out of curiosity, how is homosexual “intercourse” defined in this law? Is it any kind of sexual contact? since people of the same sex are not physically able to engage in intercourse in the normal sense of word.
Intercourse normally refers to something only a man and a woman can do together in its usage today.
Two people of the same sex are physically incapable of having intercourse – homosexuality is not what nature intended. It is only for the psychologically and culturally deformed.
How sad for Montana that they should have elected a woman with profound psychological problems regarding sexuality like Sen. Christine Kaufman and who is thus incapable of establishing wholesome relationships with a man.
I can promise you, same-gender couples are wholly capable to love-making no matter what loaded definition of “intercourse” you use.
And no, nature has no “intentions” whatsoever. Nature is blind, undirected, and indifferent to any person’s behavior, no matter what it is. Nature does not, in any manner, prescribe behavior to anyone. Moral behavior comes from people’s interactions with each other, and I guarantee you’d be hard-pressed to state a moral objection to behaviors, like homosexuality, which cause no tangible harm to anyone on the planet.
And no, gay people are neither psychological nor “culturally” deformed (whatever that means). Sounds like you’re voicing an opinion from the point of a view of an uninformed, layman, armchair psychologist. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to do 3 things:
1) State the *clinical* definition of mental disorder you’re using. There are several accepted definitions to choose from.
2) Identify the criteria for classifying behaviors as a mental disorders. There are several standard sets of criteria, but most agree that a patient needs to suffer some kind of distress, impairment, or their behavior is maladaptive in some manner.
Be sure that whatever criteria isn’t so broad that it its accidentally inclusive to vegetarianism, people with fluency in more than 3 languages, Master’s level chess players, or many other statistically uncommon, yet non-pathological behaviors.
3) Show that homosexuality meets the aforementioned criteria.
You can do #1 and #2 with no sweat, but you’d be hard-pressed to show how homosexuality meets any coherent definition of a mental illness in any manner.
Well, I wasn’t looking for an ignorant reply on intercourse.
“no matter what loaded definition of “intercourse” you use.”
I was asking about what the law says – this is for people who read the article.
“And no, gay people are neither psychological nor “culturally” deformed (whatever that means).”
They are completely psychologically deformed, full of profound psychological problems which prevent them from establishing healthy intimate relationships with the opposite sex. That is what nature intended. But you don’t know anything about nature or about homosexuality.
People who normalize homosexuality are causing great harm in society starting with their long list of irrational dogmas about the subject.
If you want to discuss the subject, you can start by presenting the full and detailed etiology of any single case of homosexuality, with all the factors and causes for the person developing a homosexuality problem. Then you can explain how you investigated this and how you know whatever you think you know.
Be sure you define everything that is encompassed by the term “homosexuality,” unless you want to talk about something without being capable of defining it.
“There are several accepted definitions to choose from.”
I believe that the narrowness and shallowness of your entire “accepted” ideology is exactly where the problem begins.
Reality exists independently of what a little group of people have decided to accept as their own opinions and myths of the same.
“They are completely psychologically deformed, full of profound psychological problems which prevent them from establishing healthy intimate relationships with the opposite sex.”
There’s a really great write-up on the reasons explaining why homosexuality was removed from the DSM back in 1973:
To summarize, homosexuality does not meet any definition of a mental illness, largely because its not maladaptive, there’s no obvious impairment in social functioning, gay people are generally quite happy with themselves, are able to hold jobs and form healthy interpersonal relationships with others.
At best, gay people form intimate relationships with members of the same sex, rather than the opposite-sex, **but that’s a far cry from classifying those relationships as clinically pathological**. A strong case can be made that intimate same-sex relationships are optimal for a gay person’s happiness, self-esteem, well-being, a host of other criteria.
The article makes a great comment: “The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession. However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions: celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women). If homosexuality per se does not meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder, what is it? Descriptively, it is one form of sexual behavior. Our profession need not now agree on its origin, significance, and value for human happiness when we acknowledge that by itself it does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder”
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are, at best, descriptions of particular variations in human sexuality. Not substantially than categorizing left-handedness as different, rather than disturbed, from right-handedness.
“That is what nature intended.”
Nature has no intentions, no expectations, no wants, no desires, does not prescribe behavior in any manner. Any “intent” or “purpose” to attached to undirected, purposely process is baseless, anthromorphosized nonsense.
Even toying around with the fictional idea that nature knows or cares what anyone does, I doubt you could even articulate why behaving in matters “not the way nature intended” is even objectionable in the first place.
“People who normalize homosexuality are causing great harm in society starting with their long list of irrational dogmas about the subject.”
Great harm! To everyone in society! That’s one lofty claim. Can you state what specific, tangible harm you’re referring to?
“I believe that the narrowness and shallowness of your entire “accepted” ideology is exactly where the problem begins.”
You mean the narrow, shallow preference of clinically accepted definitions of medical terminology over uninformed layman definitions?
Juliet said: “There’s a really great write-up on the reasons explaining why homosexuality was removed from the DSM back in 1973:”
Pretty lame, if you ask me.
“its not maladaptive,”
I see that you cannot explain the etiology of a single case of homosexuality, much less all of them. If you cannot explain why a person develops a homosexuality problem, how can you even make statements about adaptation? Adaptation can only be considered when there is a history of problems to adapt to. Your dogmatic kind of approach does not evaluate personal history and the development of any psychological dynamics – a blanket statement is not the same thing as proof. The question that liberals cannot answer – because of a serious lack of research ethics – is what causes a person’s psychology to degenerate into homosexuality dynamics. And it does involve, I think, concerning many individuals, asking what are these homosexual dynamics a reaction to or a product of. Just like for pedophilia, bestiality, and so many other dysfunctions. The question is what caused that person to develop those profoundly deformed and unhealthy dynamics in their minds.
“there’s no obvious impairment in social functioning,”
There is the complete impairment of socially functioning as the heterosexuals they were born as, and that nature intended them to be. Not only socially, psychologically, emotionally, culturally/ideologically.
“gay people are generally quite happy with themselves,”
Many dysfunctional people are. Many harmful people are too. Many ignorant people too, many unethical or criminal people are too. In fact, the more deformed your psychology, the happier you will be if no one questions your problems, your ignorance, or your lack of ethics. This certainly applies to people with a homosexuality agenda. The more impunity for the harm they do there is, the happier they are. It’s not rocket science. And the more their lack of a conscience can be sustained with a high level of emotional comfort.
“are able to hold jobs and form healthy interpersonal relationships with others.”
Certainly incapable of forming healthy intimate relationships with the opposite sex, and clearly incapable of forming healthy relationships with same sex individuals, since they sexualize and often interact in perverted ways towards the same sex.
As for holding jobs, seriously? How ridiculous and unprofessional are liberal “authorities” to suggest having a job makes anyone psychologically wholesome and sane? Many sexual abusers, batterers, and Nazis hold/held jobs – I guess they’re all OK – especially if they are comfortable with themselves.
There’s your profoundly unethical ideology.
“I see that you cannot explain the etiology of a single case of homosexuality, much less all of them.”
No one knows why people are gay, or if there is any single identifiable “cause”; but that’s a red-herring. There’s no requirement to identify why people are gay to determine whether it fits with any clinical definition of a mental illness.
“If you cannot explain why a person develops a homosexuality problem, how can you even make statements about adaptation? Adaptation can only be considered when there is a history of problems to adapt to.”
No brownie points for playing armchair psychologist. Maladaptive behavior generally comes in two flavors:
1) harmful to one’s self. Behavior which impairs someone’s ability to reach a certain goal, meet demands of life, or impair a person’s ability to care for themselves. These behaviors usually cause some kind of distress, anxiety, suffering. Severe social phobias and eating disorders would be prime examples of behaviors which cause significant distress.
2) harmful to others. Causes some significant interference with social functioning, especially if they impair a person’s ability to form or maintain relationships with others. Drinking until one blacks is strong predictor of self-harm and suicide. Can cause a person to feel worthless, lose interest in their job, alienate friends and family.
There certainly is a lot of wiggle room in how maladaptive behavior is defined, but its almost always going to coincide with some tangible suffering endured by the patient or others. Meaning, it causes the patient anxiety, distress, suffering, fear, depression, significantly interferes with the patient’s interpersonal relationships.
“There is the complete impairment of socially functioning as the heterosexuals they were born”
Does this cause gay people significant anxiety, distress, suffering, fear, depression (separate, of course, from societal disapproval)? Does it significantly interfere with a gay person’s ability to form and maintain interpersonal relationships with others, reach goals of interest to them, meet the demands of life?
All you’ve been able to say so far is that gay people don’t have sexual relationships with, but you haven’t specifically identified why that behavior is harmful, even in principle. The entire “homosexuality is a mental illness” argument falls through the floor in the utter absence of any identifiable harm suffering endured by anyone,
“as nature intended them to be”
Whoops, nature has no intentions for anyone. Nor have you even identified the objection to people behavior differently from mother nature is even harmful in the first place. Thanks for playing.
“There’s your profoundly unethical ideology.”
Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, your asinine mischaracterization of LGBT people is a product of a deeply held, irrational prejudice, and not actually a based on any coherent argument at all?
Alessandra said: “I see that you cannot explain the etiology of a single case of homosexuality, much less all of them.”
Juliet said:No one knows why people are gay, or if there is any single identifiable “cause”; but that’s a red-herring.
You’re quite wrong. You are just projecting your complete ignorance of the subject on everyone else.
There are many people who have and continue to investigate why people develop a homosexuality problem and who have something you don’t have: knowledge about the causes. I see that you cannot tell the difference between your own very limited mind and everyone else’s. Someday you may realize that people aren’t clones and that not everyone is completely ignorant about factors and causes as you are. There are people who have knowledge about why individuals develop a pedophilia problem, an S&M problem, a bestiality problem, and also a homosexuality problem, among many others. You may be completely ignorant about all the causes involved in all these dysfunctions, but it doesn’t mean everyone else is. The problem with people with your ideology is that you are fundamentally opposed to investigation and research. This research antagonistic position is extremely narrow-minded.
Alessandra said: “If you cannot explain why a person develops a homosexuality problem, how can you even make statements about adaptation? Adaptation can only be considered when there is a history of problems to adapt to.”
Juliet said: No brownie points for playing armchair psychologist.
No points for failing to refute my point. You cannot talk about adaptation (beneficial or detrimental) unless there is a context that requires the process. You always need a context and a time-line history in order to talk about adaptation. It is this context which contains the elements that cause the problems which require the process for adaptation. Since you fail to have any knowledge about the psychological, social, and ideological development of any individual who has a homosexuality problem, you are not in a position to assess if they have adapted in any way to any element in their life experience.
Any declaration you make that a person with a homosexual problem has “not adapted” or “has not maladapted” is just a show of your (irrational) dogmatic position. By your own admission, you have no knowledge about any analysis of the history of any individual in regard to their psychological, social, and ideological development related to homosexuality. If you are ignorant about the history of a person’s development (independently if it’s disordered and unhealthy or not), you cannot say what they have or have not adapted to, or in what way (healthy or unhealthy, harmful or not).
Although the question you ask about the definition of mental illness is very important and perfectly valid, I don’t really think that blog comment sections provide the space for discussing it.
It might be interesting to wade into a bit in any case, given how dogmatic you are in your positions 🙂 It’s always interesting to debate the subject with someone who thinks they know it all about mental illness – even if they are completely incapable of researching and understanding the psychological history of even a single individual with a homosexuality problem. These are the people we find on the Internet. Experts!
Apparently, you make no distinction between the following words: disordered, dysfunctional, deformed, degenerate, perverted, perverse, and mentally ill.
I do, although they may intersect. But if you assume that you can interchange “disordered/dysfunctional/unhealthy/perverted” with “mentally ill” any time I write any of the former, you are making a big mistake.
I don’t use “mental illness” much because there isn’t a notion of degrees of illness – it already implies a profound degree and of certain kinds only. So it’s not comparable to saying “sick” for physical illnesses as with having a cold, the flu, or pneumonia. You can say you were “sick” for all of these, but you normally don’t go around saying you are “mentally ill” any time you have some sort of psychological problem.
The concept of “mental illness” is also inseparable from (political) ideology, both culturally and socially, and it also exists within a person’s own psychology. An analysis of the historical definitions of “mental illness” shows that clearly. The definition of “mental illness” usually reflects the dominant groups in society, with all their lack of ethics embedded. This is another point you also don’t seem to realize at all.
Alessandra said: “as nature intended them to be”
Juliet said: Whoops, nature has no intentions for anyone.
I see no basis or proof for your claim. The human species is heterosexual, so that’s the intention. It’s not only heterosexual, but adult-sexual, and human-human sexual, if you will. Nature has lots of intentions. Lots. And that’s why people can be so unhealthy, because they don’t go in the direction nature intended. Nature is not “anything goes” as you claim.
Juliet said:Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, your asinine mischaracterization of LGBT people is a product of a deeply held, irrational prejudice, and not actually a based on any coherent argument at all?
So far, you have not been able to show that I have mischaracterized LGBT people. You have also failed to point out any irrational argument I have made.
In my opinion, it’s quite irrational to claim to be an expert on homosexuality when you are completely incapable of explaining the etiology of homosexuality for even a single individual.
You see, I would never think a person who is completely incapable of explaining why an individual rapes or develops anorexia or tortures animals is a psychology expert in these subjects. Likewise, I fail to see any expertise from your part regarding homosexuality. Normalizing it is not explaining it.
I can see that you are just repeating what you were told in your little homosexuality agenda pamphlets, but that’s not the same as being able to think about what’s written there. Given that you are going to adopt the ideology that simply makes you feel better, in the end, what do you care, right?