http://www.narth.com/docs/satinovr.html
This article and subsequent interview express something I have been straining to find reference to for quite some time regarding the subject of homosexuality. The argument for tolerance appears to be a combination of claims that one cannot help ones desires, that desires are themselves intrinsically good, that any possible repurcussions of any given activity are not moral, but simply cicumstantial and not worthy of consideration, and finally that people just in general have a right to do as they please.
One can see the obvious comparisons to this sort of mindset and the supposedly unhealthy state of antisocial personality disorder - colloquially, sociopathic behavior. Yet the one is conserdered an illness and the other is not.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39219
"Antisocial personality disorder: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society"
Inevitably, someone will accuse me of trying to insinuate that homosexuality is some expression of sociopathic behavior. That is not at all my point. My point is, if you read the first article referenced at the top of this OP, you will find that the entire scope of psychological endeavor suffers from the same problem: it is all a matter more or less of social acceptance or lack thereof.
From the article -
"Q: Should the American Psychiatric Association have de-pathologized homosexuality?
A: In some ways I think the psychiatric establishment was right--homosexuality is not a disease the way that, say, pneumonia or cancer or schizophrenia are diseases. Homosexuality makes a certain kind of sense as an understandable adaptation to some types of life circumstances. If you grow up in a Cosa Nostra family, it makes sense to be a sociopath. By the same token, it's profoundly confusing to label the sociopathic responses, of, say, war orphans as "disordered" when a war orphan must become a sociopath in order to survive; if he fails to, he may die. So, under the circumstances of war, which response is "healthier"--that is to say, "adaptive"?
Homosexuality, too, is a method of adapting to adverse circumstances. But like sociopathy, it exacts a cost in terms of constrictions in relationships."
My favorite quote from the whole article: "Intellectuals, I've come to believe, are definitely creatures of fashion, and much less leaders than they are followers."
The bottom line is the entire subject desperately needs further inquiry, and yet it has come to the forefront of political discourse now and is being rushed along pell mell with no thought as to all the possible damage.
How do you define what is damaging enough to society to legitimate a law? If we can outlaw smoking in privately owned institutions like resteraunts, what civil rights are there at all? If everyone is a victim, how do we decide who to protect anymore?
This article and subsequent interview express something I have been straining to find reference to for quite some time regarding the subject of homosexuality. The argument for tolerance appears to be a combination of claims that one cannot help ones desires, that desires are themselves intrinsically good, that any possible repurcussions of any given activity are not moral, but simply cicumstantial and not worthy of consideration, and finally that people just in general have a right to do as they please.
One can see the obvious comparisons to this sort of mindset and the supposedly unhealthy state of antisocial personality disorder - colloquially, sociopathic behavior. Yet the one is conserdered an illness and the other is not.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39219
"Antisocial personality disorder: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society"
Inevitably, someone will accuse me of trying to insinuate that homosexuality is some expression of sociopathic behavior. That is not at all my point. My point is, if you read the first article referenced at the top of this OP, you will find that the entire scope of psychological endeavor suffers from the same problem: it is all a matter more or less of social acceptance or lack thereof.
From the article -
"Q: Should the American Psychiatric Association have de-pathologized homosexuality?
A: In some ways I think the psychiatric establishment was right--homosexuality is not a disease the way that, say, pneumonia or cancer or schizophrenia are diseases. Homosexuality makes a certain kind of sense as an understandable adaptation to some types of life circumstances. If you grow up in a Cosa Nostra family, it makes sense to be a sociopath. By the same token, it's profoundly confusing to label the sociopathic responses, of, say, war orphans as "disordered" when a war orphan must become a sociopath in order to survive; if he fails to, he may die. So, under the circumstances of war, which response is "healthier"--that is to say, "adaptive"?
Homosexuality, too, is a method of adapting to adverse circumstances. But like sociopathy, it exacts a cost in terms of constrictions in relationships."
My favorite quote from the whole article: "Intellectuals, I've come to believe, are definitely creatures of fashion, and much less leaders than they are followers."
The bottom line is the entire subject desperately needs further inquiry, and yet it has come to the forefront of political discourse now and is being rushed along pell mell with no thought as to all the possible damage.
How do you define what is damaging enough to society to legitimate a law? If we can outlaw smoking in privately owned institutions like resteraunts, what civil rights are there at all? If everyone is a victim, how do we decide who to protect anymore?
