Homosexuality as Mental Disorder

[Booger]

I've seen this bandied about in posts lately (e.g., KevinBrowning), i.e., that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Nothing could be further from the truth and to put this ridiculous notion to bed, I'm going to squash it in this thread. Ready, KB?

A Brief History of Professional Beliefs about Homosexuality:

Until the mid 1950's the scientific study of human sexuality was in its infancy; research into sexual orientation was almost unknown. Homosexuality had been condemned by religious leaders for centuries. Almost all gays and lesbians remained securely in the closet. Homosexual behavior was a criminal act in most states of the U.S. It was branded a sexual deviation by mental health professionals. Homosexuality was listed as such by the American Psychiatric Association in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders.

During the early 1950's, Psychologist Evelyn Hooker was inspired to undertake research into sexual orientation after having befriended Sam From. He was a gay student who attended one of her psychology classes at UCLA. He didn't seem to fit any of the familiar stereotypes of a gay male. In 1957, she published a report called "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual." It showed that "homosexuals were not inherently abnormal and that there was no difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in terms of pathology." Dr. Hooker headed the Task Force on Homosexuality of the National Institute of Mental Health for many years. She died in 1996, but had lived long enough to see the establishment of a new area of scientific study: sexual orientation in humans.

As of 2001, all of the major professional organizations in the field state that homosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed sexual orientation.

Recent Statements by Professional Associations

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975 (that was before you were even born, KB).

Recent statements by professional organizations include:

• The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized."
• The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts.
• The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981.
• The American Psychological Association (APA) released a Statement on Homosexuality in July 1994. Their first two paragraphs are:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

In addition, in August 1994, the APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical:

• attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or
• referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation

The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." They state:

• "...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
• "...psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
• "...homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem."
• "There is no evidence indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children."

See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In August 1997, the APA published a news release about a recently passed resolution "on so-called reparative therapy." The resolution "raises ethical concerns about attempts to change sexual orientation, reaffirms psychology's opposition to homophobia and client's rights to unbiased treatment." See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in December 1994 which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation."

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth." "Just the facts” can be read at:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Per “Just the facts,” “the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder…” It goes on to say that:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association and defining the standard of the field, does not include homosexuality as a mental disorder. All other major health professional organizations have supported the American Psychiatric Association in its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-gender sexual desires among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among health and mental health professional organizations. Despite the unanimity of the health and mental health professions on the normality of homosexuality, the idea of “reparative therapy” has recently been adopted by conservative organizations and aggressively promoted in the media. Because of this aggressive promotion of “reparative therapy,” a number of the health and mental health professional organizations have recently issued public statements about “reparative therapy” as well.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Homosexuality and Adolescence states: Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.

The American Counseling Association has adopted a resolution that states
that it: opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about
sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is
based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation. Further, at its 1999 World Conference, ACA adopted a position opposing the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.

The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

The American Psychological Association in its Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states: That the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.

The National Association of Social Workers in its Policy Statement on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues: endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so.

Batter up, KB.

[FruitandNut]

An addendum to Booger's posting that is worth trolling through:-


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[KevinBrowning]

A Brief History of Professional Beliefs about Zoosexuals:

Until the mid 2020's the scientific study of human sexuality was in its infancy; research into sexual orientation was almost unknown. Zoosexuality (formerly called zoophilia, or bestiality) had been condemned by religious leaders for centuries. Almost all zoosexuals remained securely in the closet. Zoophile behavior was a criminal act in most states of the U.S. It was branded a sexual deviation by mental health professionals. Zoosexuality was listed as such by the American Psychiatric Association in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders.

During the early 2040's, Psychologist Evelyn Hooker was inspired to undertake research into sexual orientation after having befriended Sam From. He was a zoosexual student who attended one of her psychology classes at UCLA. He didn't seem to fit any of the familiar stereotypes of a zoosexual male. In 2045, she published a report called "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Zoosexual." It showed that "zoosexuals were not inherently abnormal and that there was no difference between zoosexual and heterosexual men in terms of pathology." Dr. Hooker headed the Task Force on Zoosexuality of the National Institute of Mental Health for many years. She died in 1996, but had lived long enough to see the establishment of a new area of scientific study: sexual orientation in humans.

As of 2055, all of the major professional organizations in the field state that zoosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed sexual orientation.

Recent Statements by Professional Associations

In 2037, the American Psychiatric Association removed zoosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975

Recent statements by professional organizations include:

• The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized."
• The American Bar Association in 2041 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual zoosexual acts.
• The World Health Organization removed zoosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 2048.
• The American Psychological Association (APA) released a Statement on Zoosexuality in July 2052. Their first two paragraphs are:

The research on zoosexuality is very clear. Zoosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of zoosexuals. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that zoosexuals function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is zoosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the zoosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of zoosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair zoosexuality are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

In addition, in August 2056, the APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical:

• attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or
• referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation

The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Zoosexuality." They state:

• "...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
• "...psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
• "...zoosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem."
• "There is no evidence indicating that zoosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children."

See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


In August 2058, the APA published a news release about a recently passed resolution "on so-called reparative therapy." The resolution "raises ethical concerns about attempts to change sexual orientation, reaffirms psychology's opposition to zoophobia and client's rights to unbiased treatment." See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in December 2058 which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help zoosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation."

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that zoosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

In 2059, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth." "Just the facts” can be read at:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Per “Just the facts,” “the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that zoosexuality is not a mental disorder…” It goes on to say that:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association and defining the standard of the field, does not include zoosexuality as a mental disorder. All other major health professional organizations have supported the American Psychiatric Association in its declassification of zoosexuality as a mental disorder in 2037. Thus, the idea that zoosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-gender sexual desires among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among health and mental health professional organizations. Despite the unanimity of the health and mental health professions on the normality of zoosexuality, the idea of “reparative therapy” has recently been adopted by conservative organizations and aggressively promoted in the media. Because of this aggressive promotion of “reparative therapy,” a number of the health and mental health professional organizations have recently issued public statements about “reparative therapy” as well.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Zoosexuality and Adolescence states: Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.

The American Counseling Association has adopted a resolution that states
that it: opposes portrayals of zoosexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about
sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is
based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation. Further, at its 2059 World Conference, ACA adopted a position opposing the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are zoosexual.

The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against zoosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that zoosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a zoosexual is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

The American Psychological Association in its Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states: That the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of zoosexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.

The National Association of Social Workers in its Policy Statement on Zoosexual Issues: endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of zoosexual people; and that promote an understanding of zoosexual cultures. Social stigmatization of zoosexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that zoosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so.

And no, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, it's a very likely scenario if the atheists and moral relativists have their way with this country in the coming years.

[Fyshhed]

And no, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, it's a very likely scenario if the atheists and moral relativists have their way with this country in the coming years.

Could they be right? Or is it Ad Populem that so many professionals have corrected a mistake and moved on?

What would it hurt to admit that it's not a paraphilia? Those darned liberals are telling the truth again :(

And about the moral relativists... I agree. We non-Christians dislike those Christian tendrils influencing national politics and all citizens. Shame on them.

[KevinBrowning]

Could they be right? Or is it Ad Populem that so many professionals have corrected a mistake and moved on?

Did you even read my edition of Boog's post?

[Booger]

KB, is this your rebuttal? ;?

If so, case closed.

And no, it's not a slippery slope fallacy,

Uh, yes it is.

Slippery slope fallacy: The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

Get your learn on, kid.

[I]t's a very likely scenario if the atheists and moral relativists have their way with this country in the coming years.

How so? Your rebuttal is worthless. For it assumes (1) scientific research conclusively showing that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is the result of atheism and moral relativistism, (2) athiests and moral relativists believe that those who engage in bestiality are not suffering from some sort of mental disorder, and (3) that it is "very likely" bestiality will be accepted as a normal sexual preference and that ultimately, psychiatrists will conclude that there is no difference in the pathology of those who commit bestiality and those who do not. You have not shown or provided evidence for items 1-3 above, other than to resort to a fallacy. Accordingly, your rebuttal is absolutely worthless.

Is this the best you can do? Surely, one holding the title of "Debator of the Month" can do better...

[KevinBrowning]

Slippery slope fallacy: The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

I've already given my rebuttal many times. All other sexual "preferences", besides a human male and a human female, were once considered mental disorders. Ever since homophilia has become morally accepted, the mental health community has caved in and deemed it "natural". It's exactly what's going to happen with things like zoophilia in the years ahead, if the psychological community doesn't realize what's happening.

Your rebuttal is worthless.

So is your thread. If you want to play "fallacy ball", then fine. Yours is one long Appeal to Authority.

[Meng Bomin]

Ever since homophilia has become morally accepted, the mental health community has caved in and deemed it "natural". It's exactly what's going to happen with things like zoophilia in the years ahead, if the psychological community doesn't realize what's happening.

That is exactly what the slippery slope fallacy is:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thank you for providing that wonderful example.

The problem is that the mental health community has realized that homosexuality is not maladaptive. Things like zoophilia and pedophilia are.

[KevinBrowning]

That is exactly what the slippery slope fallacy is:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thank you for providing that wonderful example.

No, it's not, because in this case it's very true.

The problem is that the mental health community has realized that homosexuality is not maladaptive. Things like zoophilia and pedophilia are.

Not maladaptive? Homophiles don't reproduce. I'd say that's a pretty unhelpful "adaptation".

[Booger]

I've already given my rebuttal many times. All other sexual "preferences", besides a human male and a human female, were once considered mental disorders. Ever since homophilia has become morally accepted, the mental health community has caved in and deemed it "natural". It's exactly what's going to happen with things like zoophilia in the years ahead, if the psychological community doesn't realize what's happening.

So where's your support? Not only have you again resorted to a slippery slope fallacy, you have failed to support the assertion that the mental health community "caved" into moral relativists and atheists. Moreover, to suggest that the mental health community is comprised of a homogenous group of moral relativists who changed their opinion because homosexuality became "morally accepted" is horrible reasoning. First, it, as noted, assumes the mental health community is a homogenous group, which is ridiculous on its face. Second, it is precisely BECAUSE of the research done on homosexuality by the mental health community that homosexuality has become "morally accepted," not the other way around!

Per the APA:

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

So is your thread. If you want to play "fallacy ball", then fine. Yours is one long Appeal to Authority.

Wrong (once again). In order to have a fallacious Appeal to Authority, the person or entity who is claimed to be an expert on subject S is not, in reality, qualified to make reliable claims on subject S. Are you suggesting that the mental health organizations (and the mental health community as a whole) are not qualified to make reliable claims as to what constitutes a mental disorder? If your answer is yes, then I submit that it is you who is suffering from a mental disorder—retardation.

From the Nizkor fallacy descriptions
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

6. The authority in question must be identified.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.




Can we get a vote to strip KB of his Debator of the Month title?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Booger]

No, it's not, because in this case it's very true.

You're confused AND wrong. You're using the slippery slope to prove the truth of your statement. Your claim is a classic slippery slope fallacy.

[KevinBrowning]

You're confused AND wrong. You're using the slippery slope to prove the truth of your statement. Your claim is a classic slippery slope fallacy.

Haha, I love it. Yours isn't a fallacy, because you say so. Mine is, because you say so. Here's the problem, Boog: You haven't given any EVIDENCE supporting the claim that it's "natural", and not a disorder. I have given tons of evidence why it IS a disorder. Your only "evidence" is the word of these so-called experts, who have simply decided to cater to the popular opinion, rather than being psychologically objective. It's obvious to any thinking person that there's something very, very wrong with a man's brain if he wants to have sex with another man. So, in your words, "Batter up." Instead of getting so trigger-happy with the Nizkor linking, tell me, in your argument, why homophilia is so natural, without resorting to "Because the APA said so."

[Iluvatar]

Boog: You haven't given any EVIDENCE

\
He gave statements by 5-6 credible and respected groups. He's shown that over 30 years, thousands of medical professionals have conducted many studies, and the conclusion they have collectively and conclusively reached is that it is not a mental disorder.

As for appeal to Authority, Boog is correct.

Eminem says that Kryptonite causes cancer

The CDC, in conjunction with the Surgeon General, have just completed a 10 year study that shows that Kryptonite causes cancer

As for the slippery slope, I believe that you have indeed created a fallacious one. This, however, is not an easily identifiable fallacy, as it's rather subjective.

You seem be under the impression that all of the various accredited medical groups are under the influence of various atheistic and morally relativistic influences. Is it possible that tens of thousands of doctors who have spent their lives studying such phenomenon and have all come to a consensus on this topic may in fact be correct? As it is, you are pitting yourself against the entire medical profession of America, in a medical debate. Even the DoM doesn't get that much credibility against groups like that.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Apokalupsis]

Out of curiousity Kev, can you link to the posts that have your evidence? I think it would be important for that info to be easily reviewed through this thread, linking to your existing arguments would suffice.

[AuspiciousFist]

Haha, I love it. Yours isn't a fallacy, because you say so. Mine is, because you say so.

actually, he provided a half-page explanation on why his is not a fallacy.

you just said "mine's not a fallacy"

Your only "evidence" is the word of these so-called experts, who have simply decided to cater to the popular opinion, rather than being psychologically objective.

do you have any proof of this?
Are there any studies (by groups not affiliated with religions) that have proved that homosexuality is a mental disorder?

It's obvious to any thinking person that there's something very, very wrong with a man's brain if he wants to have sex with another man.

I hope that's not your support for your poisiton...

So, in your words, "Batter up." Instead of getting so trigger-happy with the Nizkor linking, tell me, in your argument, why homophilia is so natural, without resorting to "Because the APA said so."

I can only speak for myself on this, but maybe homosexuality is not natural in the sense of evolutionary procreation or whatever. That does not make it bad, you can't fault homosexuals for that.

I'm left handed, that's not "natural," it even used to be regarded as demonic, so should I not be allowed to write? Should my left hand be cut off?

[firesdeath]

No, it's not, because in this case it's very true.



Not maladaptive? Homophiles don't reproduce. I'd say that's a pretty unhelpful "adaptation".

I dont know about you guys but has anyone found that the world is getting very populated and there alot of poor people that can not afford to have kids but do accidently. Doesnt homosexuality slow down the populations growth of the world. I dont know about you guys but I dont want to have a over populated world in the next 100 -1000 years.

Another thing well done booger, brovo brovo
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

[firesdeath]

Wrong (once again). In order to have a fallacious Appeal to Authority, the person or entity who is claimed to be an expert on subject S is not, in reality, qualified to make reliable claims on subject S. Are you suggesting that the mental health organizations (and the mental health community as a whole) are not qualified to make reliable claims as to what constitutes a mental disorder? If your answer is yes, then I submit that it is you who is suffering from a mental disorder—retardation.

Hey booger mentally retarded people arent even that dumb lol give them some credit. lol
They would at least know what side they are on. lol

:* :* :*
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[firesdeath]

I can only speak for myself on this, but maybe homosexuality is not natural in the sense of evolutionary procreation or whatever. That does not make it bad, you can't fault homosexuals for that.

I'm left handed, that's not "natural," it even used to be regarded as demonic, so should I not be allowed to write? Should my left hand be cut off?

Very well spoken.
/\

[Meng Bomin]

Not maladaptive? Homophiles don't reproduce. I'd say that's a pretty unhelpful "adaptation".

"Maladaptive" has nothing to do with reproduction. It has to do with a behavior's effect on the person and/or others. Homosexuality does is not harmful to a person's ability to participate in society and it does not harm others, so it is not maladaptive. Zoophilia is harmful to the animals that one decides to have their 'relationship' with and is also harmful to the person themself. Pedophilia is the same. There is quite a difference between homosexuality and paraphilia. That is why homosexuality is not called 'homophilia' any more by psychologists.

[Fyshhed]

Unless you can provide some evidence that refutes the past 35 years of new data and analysis, Kevin, I have to accuse you of stubbornly adhering to an unfounded opinion.

And if you just say "Neener." and walk away, it does little to let us know you ever had a legitimate claim in the first place.

I personally think you're misguided on this issue, and should take a split second to question your beliefs and consider that 35 years of professionals (some of whom are even Christian and morally "absolute") can truly correct a mistake.

Or has science not been following that trend in recent history? Is laser surgery just a morally relative practice? How about weapons development? Just a rumor? Nanotechnology just an Atheist conspiracy?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The point is, you're selectively trying to discredit something that is just as feasible as similar fields, but only because it conflicts with your beliefs. Millions of people + proof does not an ad populem make. It merely reflects that many folks know something that's true.