Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Homosexuality a disability?

Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association. The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase. I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 3:59:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Thanks for the response

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association.

That is an appeal to authority. I believe they used to consider it one but no longer do, Id be interested in what changed that.

The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase.

I never argued the human population was in danger.

I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.

Im more interested in truth than trying to avoid hurt feelings. I think disabilities should be dissapproved of as they are inherently a bad thing in most cases. Thats not to say the disabled shouldn't still be treated like people though, since they are.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 4:01:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 12:08:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Is Homosexuality a disability?

No.

Mind explaining further?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 6:07:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 4:01:06 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 12:08:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Is Homosexuality a disability?

No.

Mind explaining further?

What's to explain? It's a pretty simple question with a simple answer.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 6:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 6:07:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:01:06 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 12:08:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Is Homosexuality a disability?

No.

Mind explaining further?

What's to explain? It's a pretty simple question with a simple answer.

Explain why it isnt a disability. Whats your line of reasoning?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 6:35:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 6:22:58 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 6:07:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:01:06 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 12:08:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Is Homosexuality a disability?

No.

Mind explaining further?

What's to explain? It's a pretty simple question with a simple answer.

Explain why it isnt a disability. Whats your line of reasoning?

The same reason that homosexuality isn't an apple. It doesn't meet the definition.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 6:41:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 6:35:14 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/15/2016 6:22:58 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 6:07:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:01:06 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 12:08:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Is Homosexuality a disability?

No.

Mind explaining further?

What's to explain? It's a pretty simple question with a simple answer.

Explain why it isnt a disability. Whats your line of reasoning?

The same reason that homosexuality isn't an apple. It doesn't meet the definition.

Whats your definition of a disability? I used the one from the Oxford dictionary.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 7:03:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
It's a mental illness, but I don't know if it counts as a disability.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 7:13:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 6:35:14 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/15/2016 6:22:58 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 6:07:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:01:06 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/15/2016 12:08:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Is Homosexuality a disability?

No.

Mind explaining further?

What's to explain? It's a pretty simple question with a simple answer.

Explain why it isnt a disability. Whats your line of reasoning?

The same reason that homosexuality isn't an apple. It doesn't meet the definition.

Whats your definition of a disability? I used the one from the Oxford dictionary.

It doesn't fit any of the definitions I'm aware of, including the Oxford Dictionary.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 7:22:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 7:03:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's a mental illness, but I don't know if it counts as a disability.

I can understand that. I actually wasnt sure whether to use the word illness, disorder, or disability.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:21:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 3:59:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Thanks for the response

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association.

That is an appeal to authority. I believe they used to consider it one but no longer do, Id be interested in what changed that.

The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase.

I never argued the human population was in danger.

I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.

Im more interested in truth than trying to avoid hurt feelings. I think disabilities should be dissapproved of as they are inherently a bad thing in most cases. Thats not to say the disabled shouldn't still be treated like people though, since they are.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

http://www.apa.org...

Again, science has determined there is no correlation between psychopathology and sexual orientation.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:22:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 7:03:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's a mental illness, but I don't know if it counts as a disability.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

http://www.apa.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 1:11:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 12:22:51 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/15/2016 7:03:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's a mental illness, but I don't know if it counts as a disability.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

http://www.apa.org...

Screw what the American Psychiatric Association says.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 1:21:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:11:39 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:22:51 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/15/2016 7:03:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's a mental illness, but I don't know if it counts as a disability.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

http://www.apa.org...

Screw what the American Psychiatric Association says.

Right because people that have done extensive psychological and neurological research longer than you don't know sh*t right?
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:24:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 12:21:59 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:59:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Thanks for the response

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association.

That is an appeal to authority. I believe they used to consider it one but no longer do, Id be interested in what changed that.

The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase.

I never argued the human population was in danger.

I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.

Im more interested in truth than trying to avoid hurt feelings. I think disabilities should be dissapproved of as they are inherently a bad thing in most cases. Thats not to say the disabled shouldn't still be treated like people though, since they are.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."


http://www.apa.org...

Again, science has determined there is no correlation between psychopathology and sexual orientation.

I should first clarify that I am only refering to homosexuals as being disabled, not bisexuals. I think homosexual behavior is common enough, but to be exclusively homosexual is most certainly a disability by definition.

The APA judged homosexual behavior to not be a disorder, but I argue being exclusively homosexual as a disabiltity.
Carolean_Karl
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 6:53:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

When a heterosexual is aroused, they're not thinking about the continuation of the species (trust me, I have personal experience in this field), they're thinking about f*cking, which doesn't necessarily entail reproduction - only sexual pleasure. This is what happens to homosexuals too as far as I can tell.

Just because heterosexuality is the way humans are supposed to be doesn't make homosexuality a disability. Humans aren't supposed to be able to breath underwater, but would anyone think that was a disability? Just because something isn't what it's supposed to be doesn't mean that it's worse off - just different.

Using the same definition of disability, you could argue that heterosexuality is also a sort of disability in that heterosexuality limits someone to being aroused by only the opposite sex, just as homosexuals are limited to being aroused by only the same sex.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 7:18:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 6:53:37 PM, Carolean_Karl wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

When a heterosexual is aroused, they're not thinking about the continuation of the species (trust me, I have personal experience in this field), they're thinking about f*cking, which doesn't necessarily entail reproduction - only sexual pleasure. This is what happens to homosexuals too as far as I can tell.

Whether the people involved are thinking about the continuation of the species is irrelevent. What im arguing is the absense of arousal to the opposite sex is a disability, as its something humans are suppossd to have

Just because heterosexuality is the way humans are supposed to be doesn't make homosexuality a disability. Humans aren't supposed to be able to breath underwater, but would anyone think that was a disability? Just because something isn't what it's supposed to be doesn't mean that it's worse off - just different.

A disability is a condition that causes a limitation, so you analogy does really work.

Using the same definition of disability, you could argue that heterosexuality is also a sort of disability in that heterosexuality limits someone to being aroused by only the opposite sex, just as homosexuals are limited to being aroused by only the same sex.

Humans are supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex, not the same. What your saying is like saying males are limited in giving birth; even though they're not supposed to give birth in the first place.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 9:21:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

If the measuring stick is based upon procreation and providing support for one's offspring to maximize their survival rates then one would have to conclude that being bisexual would be best.

Bisexuals can best handle sexual urges during times of low resources by acting upon urge with same gender and have no risk of producing a resource intensive offspring. When resources are bountiful they can procreate.

If the the best most favorable option is not a disability and everything else is a disability then both hetrosexuality and homosexuality should be classified as a disabilityoung.

Of course we don't really define disability around procreation or every woman who hits menopause would be disabled, which would be silly.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:12:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:24:44 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:21:59 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:59:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Thanks for the response

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association.

That is an appeal to authority. I believe they used to consider it one but no longer do, Id be interested in what changed that.

The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase.

I never argued the human population was in danger.

I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.

Im more interested in truth than trying to avoid hurt feelings. I think disabilities should be dissapproved of as they are inherently a bad thing in most cases. Thats not to say the disabled shouldn't still be treated like people though, since they are.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."


http://www.apa.org...

Again, science has determined there is no correlation between psychopathology and sexual orientation.

I should first clarify that I am only refering to homosexuals as being disabled, not bisexuals. I think homosexual behavior is common enough, but to be exclusively homosexual is most certainly a disability by definition.

The APA judged homosexual behavior to not be a disorder, but I argue being exclusively homosexual as a disabiltity.

disability, disorder, they are still hurtful meanings. There are plenty homosexual doctors and/or professionals that you may see that you don't know that they're homosexual. The point is, a sexual orientation is not a disability, disorder, or the like. There are plenty functioning homosexuals that are vibrant and can function and contribute to society.

/End Thread
Willows
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 10:24:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

I would say that this line of thinking is flawed.

"Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution"....is a very subjective assertion and serves only to relegate a particular minority to being inferior to oneself.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 5:13:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 9:21:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

If the measuring stick is based upon procreation and providing support for one's offspring to maximize their survival rates then one would have to conclude that being bisexual would be best.

My argument has nothing to do with procreatiing or child rearing or any other enviromental factors. The measuring stick (the thing deciding what a disability is) is only measuring what we as people/animals are inherently progammed to do. Whether or not the animals would benefit in their enviroment by adding homosexual behaviour to their to do list is another question.

Bisexuals can best handle sexual urges during times of low resources by acting upon urge with same gender and have no risk of producing a resource intensive offspring. When resources are bountiful they can procreate.

If the the best most favorable option is not a disability and everything else is a disability then both hetrosexuality and homosexuality should be classified as a disabilityoung.

I dont understand how you have reached this dichotomy.

Of course we don't really define disability around procreation or every woman who hits menopause would be disabled, which would be silly.

Women are genetically supposed to stop giving birth after a certain point, unlike all other animals. If we were to consider menopause a disability, we might as well consider men that cant get prrgnant disabled.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 5:59:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:13:45 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:21:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

If the measuring stick is based upon procreation and providing support for one's offspring to maximize their survival rates then one would have to conclude that being bisexual would be best.

My argument has nothing to do with procreatiing or child rearing or any other enviromental factors. The measuring stick (the thing deciding what a disability is) is only measuring what we as people/animals are inherently progammed to do. Whether or not the animals would benefit in their enviroment by adding homosexual behaviour to their to do list is another question.

If it is not about procreation why did you write this?

"Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution"

Bisexuals can best handle sexual urges during times of low resources by acting upon urge with same gender and have no risk of producing a resource intensive offspring. When resources are bountiful they can procreate.

If the the best most favorable option is not a disability and everything else is a disability then both hetrosexuality and homosexuality should be classified as a disabilityoung.

I dont understand how you have reached this dichotomy.

Of course we don't really define disability around procreation or every woman who hits menopause would be disabled, which would be silly.

Women are genetically supposed to stop giving birth after a certain point, unlike all other animals. If we were to consider menopause a disability, we might as well consider men that cant get prrgnant disabled.

Now you get it. Being homosexual should not be considered a disability as they are "programed" whether learned, genetic, or both to be attracted to same gender.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 8:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:59:33 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/17/2016 5:13:45 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:21:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

If the measuring stick is based upon procreation and providing support for one's offspring to maximize their survival rates then one would have to conclude that being bisexual would be best.

My argument has nothing to do with procreatiing or child rearing or any other enviromental factors. The measuring stick (the thing deciding what a disability is) is only measuring what we as people/animals are inherently progammed to do. Whether or not the animals would benefit in their enviroment by adding homosexual behaviour to their to do list is another question.

If it is not about procreation why did you write this?

"Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution"

What I mean is that the human species, like most species of animals, are supposed to reproduce, by genetic design.

Yes, some anamolous condition might stop an individual from reproducing like being born infertile, but that doesnt detract from the fact that the human species is still supposed to reproduce.

Bisexuals can best handle sexual urges during times of low resources by acting upon urge with same gender and have no risk of producing a resource intensive offspring. When resources are bountiful they can procreate.

If the the best most favorable option is not a disability and everything else is a disability then both hetrosexuality and homosexuality should be classified as a disabilityoung.

I dont understand how you have reached this dichotomy.

Of course we don't really define disability around procreation or every woman who hits menopause would be disabled, which would be silly.

Women are genetically supposed to stop giving birth after a certain point, unlike all other animals. If we were to consider menopause a disability, we might as well consider men that cant get prrgnant disabled.

Now you get it. Being homosexual should not be considered a disability as they are "programed" whether learned, genetic, or both to be attracted to same gender.

When I say programmed, I mean its something thats ingrained in our genetic code, something we cant help but have from birth. Female humans are born and expected to, at a certain age, experience menopause..If this is something that is supposed to happen by genetic design, it wouldnt make sense to call it a disability. We can say this about women in general, and we would be right.

Being exclusively homosexual is not something we would expect to find in any animals genetic code, and for good reason, it goes completely against the very purpose of reproduction. The only way I could see being exclusively homosexual as not a disability, is if we could expect the majority of a specific species to exhibit this trait. If that were the case though, I dont believe such a species could continue existing since they wouldnt reproduce.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 9:03:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 12:12:24 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:24:44 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:21:59 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:59:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Thanks for the response

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association.

That is an appeal to authority. I believe they used to consider it one but no longer do, Id be interested in what changed that.

The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase.

I never argued the human population was in danger.

I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.

Im more interested in truth than trying to avoid hurt feelings. I think disabilities should be dissapproved of as they are inherently a bad thing in most cases. Thats not to say the disabled shouldn't still be treated like people though, since they are.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."


http://www.apa.org...

Again, science has determined there is no correlation between psychopathology and sexual orientation.

I should first clarify that I am only refering to homosexuals as being disabled, not bisexuals. I think homosexual behavior is common enough, but to be exclusively homosexual is most certainly a disability by definition.

The APA judged homosexual behavior to not be a disorder, but I argue being exclusively homosexual as a disabiltity.

disability, disorder, they are still hurtful meanings

Yes, if you called someone with down syndrome disabled they would probably feel hurt.
Should we stop pursuing the truth of a matter just because someones feelings may be hurt?

There are plenty homosexual doctors and/or professionals that you may see that you don't know that they're homosexual.

This has nothing to do with my argument.

The point is, a sexual orientation is not a disability, disorder, or the like.

I say otherwise, and my argument explaining why , still stands.

There are plenty functioning homosexuals that are vibrant and can function and contribute to society.

I never said they werent.

/End Thread

Judging by your responses, I think your mind has been made up on this issue. No amount of discussion with me will change that.
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 10:38:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 9:03:11 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:12:24 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:24:44 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:21:59 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:59:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:21:34 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

Thanks for the response

No its not a disability as stated by the American Psychological Association.

That is an appeal to authority. I believe they used to consider it one but no longer do, Id be interested in what changed that.

The theory that homosexuality is supposed to curb human population increase has been stated but even that theory fails since there are more humans on the planet today than in the past. Technology is making humanity to live longer and in some cases healthier so human population will continue to exponentially increase.

I never argued the human population was in danger.

I would say homosexuality in both in the animal kingdom and human species is an anomaly of the human species considering our genetic makeup. However considering it a disability is not only a pejorative reference to a sexual orientation, but its simply categorizing other humans as an oddity for something they cannot control.

Im more interested in truth than trying to avoid hurt feelings. I think disabilities should be dissapproved of as they are inherently a bad thing in most cases. Thats not to say the disabled shouldn't still be treated like people though, since they are.

"No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."


http://www.apa.org...

Again, science has determined there is no correlation between psychopathology and sexual orientation.

I should first clarify that I am only refering to homosexuals as being disabled, not bisexuals. I think homosexual behavior is common enough, but to be exclusively homosexual is most certainly a disability by definition.

The APA judged homosexual behavior to not be a disorder, but I argue being exclusively homosexual as a disabiltity.

disability, disorder, they are still hurtful meanings

Yes, if you called someone with down syndrome disabled they would probably feel hurt.
Should we stop pursuing the truth of a matter just because someones feelings may be hurt?

There are plenty homosexual doctors and/or professionals that you may see that you don't know that they're homosexual.

This has nothing to do with my argument.

The point is, a sexual orientation is not a disability, disorder, or the like.

I say otherwise, and my argument explaining why , still stands.

There are plenty functioning homosexuals that are vibrant and can function and contribute to society.

I never said they werent.

/End Thread

Judging by your responses, I think your mind has been made up on this issue. No amount of discussion with me will change that.

It's hurtful because its untrue. I challenge you to define how homosexuality is a disability. What about homosexuality is a disability. when they're so many homosexuals that are productive in our society?
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 10:44:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'm confused as the OP has given definition of what a disability is, but has not relate it via examples of how homosexuality is a disability.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 7:47:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

If I'm following you correctly, homosexuality is a disability because it limits a human's senses, and that sense being arousal from the opposite sex.

So, it's not that homosexuals' sense of sexual arousal itself is limited, as they're fully capable of feeling sexually aroused, it's just that since they happened to be aroused by the same sex, it's a disability. I don't see how that's a limitation.

By your own definition, a disability is "a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities", so how does not having kids in any way serve as a limitation to that individual's movements, senses, or activities?
Hiu
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:10:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 7:47:33 AM, Cryo wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:51:32 PM, Internet wrote:
I understand that a disability is a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities. With that being said, i would think that homosexuality is a disability in regards to a human's senses. The sense limited being the arousal from the opposite sex. Its an intrinsic sense all humans are supposed to experience in order to continue our species evolution, and to not have the capacity to feel this sense seems like a disability. Is this line of thinking wrong?

If I'm following you correctly, homosexuality is a disability because it limits a human's senses, and that sense being arousal from the opposite sex.

So, it's not that homosexuals' sense of sexual arousal itself is limited, as they're fully capable of feeling sexually aroused, it's just that since they happened to be aroused by the same sex, it's a disability. I don't see how that's a limitation.

By your own definition, a disability is "a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities", so how does not having kids in any way serve as a limitation to that individual's movements, senses, or activities?

I re-read the OP's view and apparently this is perhaps one of the most ridiculous ways to discredit homosexuality. Being sexually aroused for the same sex by no means is a limitation, nor does it hinder the physiological or psychological motivation of the senses. I think the OP needs to take a look at bisexuality.