Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A kleptomaniac has a mental illness, yet their illness is an urge they choose to act on. Homosexuality is a mental illness that one chooses to act on.
The illness is a mental one, not the action itself. The mental illness leads to the action so in the case of your grandson, they do not choose their autism, but they do still choose their actions made due to the illness. A homosexual or any sexual deviant has a predisposition to certain urges and whether they act on them is the choice that is made. There are those who are mentally ill who have chosen not to act on their mental illness, who have not became sexually deviant.
See, while there are no homosexual genes (it would have been purged by evolutionary process if it existed), there are still dispositions that produce mental imbalances (chemical, development deficiencies, etc...) which can result in considerations and actions by an individual that produce sexual deviance.
Point is, you don't treat the mental illness by feeding and condoning its behavior. You recognize that this deviance is a symptom to a larger problem and seek to find means to treat that cause. The unfortunate aspect is that politics have infested most of the fields (includes the hard sciences) and the result are many decisions and directions that do not serve the field of study or its intended goals, but the politics of those who use it for their own agenda.
You do not understand mental illness.
I would recommend you read up a bit. Then come back and tell us what you've learned.
Homosexuality is a sin. You can not promote sin and be of Christ. You either serve man, or you serve God, there are no two masters.
But what if they don't want to serve Christ? Thousands of normal (by your definition) people have chosen that route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
They established it as such by their own claims. My point is, they turned around and violated those very claims and removed it. So, if you think psychology is a legitimate field of study, then you have to object to the method that was used to remove it from the list. That is, it violated its own standards to establish such.
Now, realizing that it is not a true science does not mean it holds no established means of occurrence. There are many elements of behavioral study that while not established as a definitive via scientific method, can be reasoned as general in occurrence in truth. That is, we can say... "This is fairly commonly true, or occurs more often than not, etc..."
Homosexuality fits that evaluation of a mental illness. My point as I said was that when they removed it, they did not follow any reasonable means to establish it. It was purely to meet social demand, it was a political motive and decision, not even within the constrains of the fields own process of establishment.
There are numerous reasons why homosexuality is abnormal, deviant, and counter to sound mental process. If we are to claim that we have no grounds to object to such behavior as mentally ill, then we have no grounds to claim pedophilia, necrophilia, or the many other numerous sexual mental illness are wrong.
A lot of mental illness has been removed from the DSM including Homosexuality.
What evaluation? You basically said we can say more often then not something is established then declared Homosexuality to be a mental illness?
Means to establish what? They don't have to prove negatives, the DSM isn't a book of what is not a mental illness, but what is recognizable mental illness. It is just as easy for me to say that it was political pressure that put it there in the first place.
From the DSM
Quote:
"[T]he definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-III and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”
How does Homosexuality fit into this definition exactly? Who currently considers Homosexuality to a be a manifestation of dysfunction? Just the religious right.
Government is the process through which the common people join together to counter the robber barons, insist on fair treatment (Bill of Rights, fair trials, etc.), provide for the common good -- roads, police, strong borders, national defense...
I am so tired of having religion crammed down my throat every time I turn around. I don't want to see a cement version of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, no more than I want to see a statue of a stone Ganesha statue, or a laughing Buddha.
If folks don't want to have an abortion, use birth control, marry a same sex partner... it's okay. Each to their own. But leave me, legislatures, Congress, and the courts out of it. They've got enough to keep up with.
I take that back. I would like to see a laughing Buddha statue on our courthouse lawns. In fact, I think we should pass a law that every courthouse lawn have one.
Just kidding.
Christianity is the founding tradition of this country. It shaped our beliefs, how we formed our government, etc... It is also the basis for the establishment of a moral and virtuous society and without such, the Republic can not stand for it requires a moral and virtuous people to exist, liberty can exist under no other means. Now don't confuse that to mean I am saying this country was founded as a religious nation, we are not ruled by the religion, we have no laws of religion that dictate adherence to doctrine or belief. This is what Jefferson was explaining to the Danbury Congregation about the "wall of separation". They were worried religious doctrine would be instituted into law as it had in Virginia.
The fact is, the government has violated numerous liberties by trying to dictate civil liberties as it does. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim people must serve another based on sex, color, race, sexual preference, etc.. and then condemn any type of religious doctrine. A nation of liberty does not force anyone to serve another for it is immoral, it is counter to the basis for which freedom stands.
A lot of mental illness has been removed from the DSM including Homosexuality.
What evaluation? You basically said we can say more often then not something is established then declared Homosexuality to be a mental illness?
Means to establish what? They don't have to prove negatives, the DSM isn't a book of what is not a mental illness, but what is recognizable mental illness. It is just as easy for me to say that it was political pressure that put it there in the first place.
From the DSM
How does Homosexuality fit into this definition exactly? Who currently considers Homosexuality to a be a manifestation of dysfunction? Just the religious right.
If you summarize me, please quote specifically, in context and honestly and I will respond accordingly.
Also, please cite your references with links:
Quote:
"[T]he definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-III and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”
Linking me a revised definition of mental illness and stating that all is well is rather.. well.. missing the point that was made about the entire issue.
If you summarize me, please quote specifically, in context and honestly and I will respond accordingly.
Also, please cite your references with links:
Linking me a revised definition of mental illness and stating that all is well is rather.. well.. missing the point that was made about the entire issue.
The rest of it is pretty obvious what I was saying and being honest, if you don't want to answer fine, but look again and respond. Otherwise I assume you have no response.
I even underlined the definition to make the operative phrasing more clear.
I'll wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Then they are not Christians. You do see the problem do you not? Calling yourself a Christian and then saying you don't serve him?
I don't, you're judging people based on beliefs they don't hold accordingly.
Homosexuality is a sin. You can not promote sin and be of Christ. You either serve man, or you serve God, there are no two masters.
I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. You do, and ne'er the twain shall meet. There are endless threads arguing this on the R&S forum, and the argument goes nowhere.
Regardless, I do not "promote" homosexuality. I don't CARE. I am not concerned with other people's sexual practices. Christ told us to love God and love one another, love our neighbors. He didn't make exceptions. There's a hell of a lot more important work to do to show our love to our fellow human beings than sitting around obsessing over who does what to whom with what body part. For Christ's sake-literally--it.does.not.matter.
Christianity is the founding tradition of this country. It shaped our beliefs, how we formed our government, etc... It is also the basis for the establishment of a moral and virtuous society and without such, the Republic can not stand for it requires a moral and virtuous people to exist, liberty can exist under no other means. Now don't confuse that to mean I am saying this country was founded as a religious nation, we are not ruled by the religion, we have no laws of religion that dictate adherence to doctrine or belief. This is what Jefferson was explaining to the Danbury Congregation about the "wall of separation". They were worried religious doctrine would be instituted into law as it had in Virginia.
....
You are misinformed.
Jefferson was clear on this matter as was John Adams.
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams
"We are not now, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation. Our founding fathers explicitly and clearly excluded any reference to “God” or “the Almighty” or any euphemism for a higher power in the Constitution. Not one time is the word “god” mentioned in our founding document. Not one time."
"The facts of our history are easy enough to verify. Anybody who ignorantly insists that our nation is founded on Christian ideals need only look at the four most important documents from our early history — the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution — to disprove that ridiculous religious bias. All four documents unambiguously prove our secular origins."
Declaration of Independence (1776)
"The most important assertion in this document is that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
"The power of government is derived not from any god but from the people. No appeal is made in this document to a god for authority of any kind. In no case are any powers given to religion in the affairs of man."
...
"Our national obsession with God in politics is actually a recent phenomenon and would seem completely alien to any of our founders. “In God We Trust” was first placed on United States coins in 1861, during the Civil War."
"Teddy Roosevelt tried to remove the words from our money in 1907 but was shouted down. Only in 1956 was that expression adopted as the national motto by the 84th Congress. The clause “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was inserted only in 1954," by conservatives, "either ignorant of our history, or willfully ignoring it."
The development of the American democratic republic owes a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome as well as the Enlightenment of the 17th century Europe.
John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government, was the single most important influence shaping the founding of the U.S. But the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau influenced the men who would become the founders of the American government.
"Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
