Should homosexuality be considered a mental disorder?
Debate Rounds (3)
In this debate my opponent will argue that homosexuality is healthy and not a mental illness.
Thank you for accepting, I will begin:
Homosexuality, until 1973, by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was considered a mental disorder; a psychological affliction.
Now in America the DSM hold high significance and legitimacy as it provides the common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. " It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers." The consideration that homosexuality was a mental illness in the DSM was not baseless. Sigmund Freud, a famous neurologist in the 19th century, "concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable." Along with Freud many other philosophers came to the similar conclusions. Homosexuality was considered by the mass majority, unclean, unethical, but ultimately unnatural.
If your counter argument lies in that the DSM changed its ruling of the definition of Homosexuality, I would retort that the rise of political correctness in the 70's, as well as the perpetual badgering and protesting of gay activist groups against the American Psychological Association (APA) forced the amendment. "Political correctness" is especially important in the states as failure to do so usually results in legal lawsuits and case acts, however the unnaturalness of homosexuality was never disproved; no scientific discovery denoted the term to be a fallacy and ultimately the APA changed the definition to avoid a political contention. Furthermore the terminology only amended by a hair. " Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.
In addition, homosexuality actually meets the conditions required for something to be considered a mental illness. The criterion is: "" a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress"or disability"or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." Gay's are in still in fact persecuted, ignored and mistreated. They have a higher chance to contract HIV AIDS. And, my final argument for this round, they don't posses the natural characteristics or behavioral traits of the regular, healthy human beings. Sexual promiscuity is considered natural and biologically correct as it, by causation, prompts the continuation of our species. Similarly seen in nature, homosexual traits are extremely rare and by nature are unnatural.
I in no fashion condemning gay people as it is there decision to make life choices, however narcissists are considered mentally ill, hysterics, gender confused individuals too. Homosexuals are no different as what all these disorders have in common is the lack of, or correctness of essential behavior to be considered normal.
Removal of Homosexuality have been implemented during the year 1973. Source: http://www.mindofmodernity.com...
To think that if you are homesexual then you'll be confined in a mental hospital if it is considered. Abruptly, it is not a disorder. Homosexuality is not an disorder why? Because it is not a sickness in where a certain particular person can ruin his/her life. I want to set an example; If someone confessed she is a lesbian, you would directly call an ambulance and send her directly to a mental hospital to cure her? NOTHING CAN CURE HOMOSEXUALITY. Homesexuality is inlined with your emotions.
The World Health Organization (WHO)
On January 1, 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases. In the 10 th revision of the WHO International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), "ego-dystonic sexual orientation" is listed under the heading of "psychological and behavioral disorders associated with sexual development and orientation. The ICD-10 clearly states: "The sexual orientation alone is not to be regarded as a disorder". (2) http://www.helem.net...
I will begin by addressing your initial defence, which appears to be a projection of your opinion more than factual evidence. Your definition of mental illness, "A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life," sadly misses the mark psychoanalytically speaking.
"Mental illnesses refer to disorders generally characterized by dysregulation of mood, thought, and/or behavior." (1) defined by and recognized by the most prominent and relevant material, the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Therefore as your definition is incorrect, the rest of your opening statement which is based off your definition, is both irrelevant and invalid. Following your false statement you blame "others" with actions and attitudes towards homosexuals as being the reason why homosexuals have "problems", rather than homosexual preferences. I will say I feel you perhaps are a little mixed up as "homosexual preferences" are the reason "others" persecute homosexuals in the first place. Intrinsically, homosexuality is unnatural and people reject the unnatural. This is no different then people persecuting necrophiliacs, or pedophiles, as maybe there is nothing wrong with these people other than their unnatural sexual preferences.
In the big picture, the only natural sexual preference is heterosexuality. Once again I don't condemn homosexuals and they have gained the right to make such life decisions, I simply argue the unnaturalness.
Unfortunately, your idea of a followup consists of making outlandish statements about confining homosexuals to a mental hospital and this relatively weak analogy about rushing a lesbian to the mental hospital to cure..."NOTHING CAN CURE HOMOSEXUALITY." Firstly, use your inside voice and secondly, there are many people how have mental illness that medicate, or simply live with their disorders. A few examples might be people with Asbergers syndrome, or ADD or insomniacs. Thirdly, I would like to clarify I never made any such claim. Assumptions and bad analogies are irrelevant to debate. In addition, you failed to respond to 3 main points I originally presented.
1. The rise in political correctness being the only reason the definition was initially changed
"Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change."
2. Homosexuals misguided characteristics and behavioral deficiencies that opposes heterosexual affinity required to continue life.
"Sexual promiscuity is considered natural and biologically correct as it, by causation, prompts the continuation of our species."
3. The unnaturalness of homosexuality, which I will tie in to the new point I proposed. How is homosexuality any less perverse than necrophilia, pedophilia or bestiality. Although, these versions of sexual orientation are more intense, how can one draw the line when the only natural form of sexuality is hetero.
If con wants a fighting chance in this debate he will address all three points risen and refrain from making personal and non-subjective statements. Remember, debate doesn't necessarily depict the debaters opinion.
iamwynn forfeited this round.
"Naturalness is a dangerous slope. How does one define that? As in, according to nature? I'm pretty sure a vast number of sources can point out homosexuality happening in nature. To breed and procreate? Then the same argument can be applied to having sex for fun, the use of contraceptives, or any other variant. Arguments against nature are rarely supported by nature itself, much less in a logical format."
I agree that without defining naturalness it can be a bit ambiguous. So I will expand. Naturalness as defined by the 'natural' way of things; by what is both accepted and expected. Yes, we see examples of this in nature, but as I earlier stated, it is both uncommon and scientists don't declare these animals to be homosexual creatures, but rather that they exhibit homosexual traits. They do this because they aren't exactly sure that these animals in fact 'homosexuals'. They feel that its possible these animals are doing this for other reasons.
And I would have to agree with you that contraceptives are very unnatural. Again, I think you guys are mistaken for thinking that I am against homosexuality. I am completely for it. I just stress that it was once defined as a mental disorder and that it should still be.
Anyways, my opponent forfeited the previous round failing to address my 3 points.
Thank you for reading,
iamwynn forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I saw this debate turning on the question of whether or not the DSM was correct in removing homosexuality from its lists of mental disorders. The title asks. "Should" homosexuality be considered a mental disorder? The experts feel that it should not be, as Pro points out. Pro feels that they were pressured to think this way, and that LGBT persons should still qualify as mentally ill. However, Pro points out that the scientific consensus outside the US also agrees with the modern understanding described in the DSM. I felt that Pro needed to spend more time explaining why the modern criteria is in error. Con struggled with sourcing, specifically by not properly attributing text to his sources. There were passages that were copied from his sources without proper attribution. The conduct for FF was necessary.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.