Is homosexuality a sin?

BigBadWlf · May 5, 2010

Macx said:
From the Wiki, since we're using wiki today -
feelings of having inhibited rights = distressing. suffering hate crimes = serious problems. Being denied "visitation rights" = distressing. Sex with same sex partner = sexual arousal to individuals that are not part of normative stimulation.

One has to wonder why you didnt use the DSM IV TR to define paraphilias

and here is the DSM IV TR criteria for paraphilia:
recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving, 1. nonhuman objects; 2. suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner; or 3. children or other non-consenting persons, that occur over a period of at ≥ 6 months. The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Maybe because homosexuality obviously doesnt fit the criteria for a paraphilia

Macx · May 5, 2010

As a physician I can tell you unequivocally that homosexuality is not listed in the DSM IV
(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as a mental disorder.

As a mental health professional I agree that it isn't currently listed in the DSM. The status of homosexuality in the DSM does not change what it is. It was sexual attraction (and all that) toward non-normative partners & it still is. Unless homosexuality has suddenly taken on a different meaning, or they have become a significant enough portion of society to be considered normative, it is still . . . abnormal.

LyraJean · May 5, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
Washing ones hands after using the bathroom is a habitand does nothing spiritual at allso hand washers are mentally ill

Only if your OCD

Autumnleaf · May 5, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
so the black lifestyle is not healthy and should be discouraged

For the sake of political correctness, of course not. Pragmatically...

nChrist · May 5, 2010

The opinions of men on the subject of sin mean absolutely nothing. God and His Word are the sole authority. For those who aren't Christians, you wouldn't care what God and His Word says. What God and His Word says is beyond dispute, regardless of how much dancing around the topic is done. This is one of the reasons why many people don't like the Bible. Many don't want to accept a HIGHER AUTHORITY who determines right and wrong - normal or perverted - righteous or an abomination - clean or filthy.

As for me, I'll gladly accept God and His Word as the sole authority. It would appear to be a given that intentional and habitual disobedience of God involves tremendous misery. Dancing lessons for word games won't help, but God has the answers. The only way the answers change is to leave God and His Word out of the discussion. Then you wouldn't use the term "sin", rather one of man's terms.

Autumnleaf · May 5, 2010

357magnum said:
As for me, I'll gladly accept God and His Word as the sole authority. It would appear to be a given that intentional and habitual disobedience of God involves tremendous misery. Dancing lessons for word games won't help, but God has the answers. The only way the answers change is to leave God and His Word out of the discussion. Then you wouldn't use the term "sin", rather one of man's terms.

That's it! You're right. I'm giving up oysters on the half shell. It won't be easy. Especially when they're in season. Maybe they'll start selling indulgences again one of these days.

Maren · May 5, 2010

Macx said:
As a mental health professional I agree that it isn't currently listed in the DSM. The status of homosexuality in the DSM does not change what it is. It was sexual attraction (and all that) toward non-normative partners & it still is. Unless homosexuality has suddenly taken on a different meaning, or they have become a significant enough portion of society to be considered normative, it is still . . . abnormal.

Being blond haired and blue eyed isn't either, nor is it listed in the DSM either. And since you'll probably counter with being blond haired and blue eyed not being an action, being left handed is non-normative as well. Not being normative does not equal being bad or even abnormal.

Then again, the majority of people in the world are not Christian; so being Christian is not normative and -- by your claim -- abnormal. Guess we need to include being Christian in the DSM as well, at least if you are going to be consistent in your criteria.

Macx · May 6, 2010

Maren said:
Being blond haired and blue eyed isn't either, nor is it listed in the DSM either. And since you'll probably counter with being blond haired and blue eyed not being an action, being left handed is non-normative as well. Not being normative does not equal being bad or even abnormal.

Then again, the majority of people in the world are not Christian; so being Christian is not normative and -- by your claim -- abnormal. Guess we need to include being Christian in the DSM as well, at least if you are going to be consistent in your criteria.

Being blond, blue eyed, or left handed are genetic . . . the evidence of sexual preference being genetic is, a wee short of weak.

Non-normative sexual preference that causes distress &/or social difficulties . . . you know, paraphilia, is significantly different than religious preference, given that religious preference is not a sexual preference . . . so it can't be a paraphilia. But good try.

SithDoughnut · May 6, 2010

Macx said:
As a mental health professional I agree that it isn't currently listed in the DSM. The status of homosexuality in the DSM does not change what it is. It was sexual attraction (and all that) toward non-normative partners & it still is. Unless homosexuality has suddenly taken on a different meaning, or they have become a significant enough portion of society to be considered normative, it is still . . . abnormal.

You have the studies to back up your argument, right? If it's that obvious then someone will have proven it.

Maren · May 6, 2010

Macx said:
Being blond, blue eyed, or left handed are genetic . . . the evidence of sexual preference being genetic is, a wee short of weak.

Actually, left handedness has not been discovered to be genetic. What has been discovered is that genetics may increase the odds of someone being left-handed but not everyone that has the gene (LRRTM1) is left handed. Instead, this makes it very much like homosexuality -- in which research does supported a biological disposition toward homosexuality.

It is also worth noting that somewhat more than a century ago there was a movement among Christians to "cure" people of left-handedness as it was believed to be evil (the reason the Latin word sinister, meaning "on the left", means what it does in English). There was an effort to "cure" people who were left-handed in the 19th century by Christians that is not unlike the effort to "cure" homosexuals in the 20th by -- with even similar claims of success (but very little real success).

Not to mention, simply because something is genetic does not make it good. For example, as I'm sure you know, there are things listed in the DSM that have genetic causes. So, by your logic, because blond hair and blue eyes are non-normative then they obviously must belong in the DSM.

Macx said:
Non-normative sexual preference that causes distress &/or social difficulties . . . you know, paraphilia, is significantly different than religious preference, given that religious preference is not a sexual preference . . . so it can't be a paraphilia. But good try.

I didn't make the claim that you would think a left-handedness would be a paraphilia. This seems to be nothing more than a red herring as being left handed is also known to cause social difficulties and distress, to the point that we actually create things specifically for left handed people. Your claim is that if something is non-normative it should be classified as a mental disorder.

LittleNipper · May 6, 2010

Belk said:
That would make brushing your teeth a mental illness.

Who wants to be around a smelly toothless wonder? If one wears away one's enamel with compulise brushing, that is one thing. But healthy teeth is a pretty smile. A pretty smile works wonders for society at large.

LittleNipper · May 6, 2010

mwood30 said:
How many heterosexual people are obese?

How many heterosexual people are dying a slow, painful death from obesity induced diabetes?

How many heterosexual people are getting lung cancer from smoking?

If a homosexual eats healthy, doesn't smoke, and is monogomous then he will be healthy.

If a heterosexual feasts on junk food, smokes cigarettes, and has unsafe sex with many partners then he will be unhealthy.

The health of a person is determined by the health of their habits, not their sexuality... right?

If a person is oblivious to his sexual health, he will likely be even less concerned with his vital statistics.

Belk · May 6, 2010

LittleNipper said:
Who wants to be around a smelly toothless wonder? If one wears away one's enamel with compulise brushing, that is one thing. But healthy teeth is a pretty smile. A pretty smile works wonders for society at large.

Nipper, I'm beginning to wonder if you are really following this conversation. What does this have to do with your definition of why something would be a mental illness?

Macx · May 6, 2010

SithDoughnut said:
You have the studies to back up your argument, right? If it's that obvious then someone will have proven it.

Are you serious?

How many gay people are there in the United States?
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that there are 8.8 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons in the U.S based on the 2005/2006 American Community Survey, an extension of the U.S. Census (Gary J. Gates, 2006, "Same-Sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey").

In July of 2005 when the study started, the population of the U.S. was 295,560,549 according to the U.S. Census Bureau found here Google - public data

What percent of 295,560,549 is 8,800,000? 2.9773933056268617% Roughly (rounding up) 3 out of every 100 Americans is Gay. Does that make it normal or abnormal? Is it the exception or the rule? Any other questions with obvious answers you'd like me to dig up for ya Mr. Doughnut?

Macx · May 6, 2010

Maren said:
Your claim is that if something is non-normative it should be classified as a mental disorder.

Um, no, if that is what you read the first time through, I'd invite you to reread and take it a little slower. Your understanding is that I am saying it is a mental disorder because it is non-normative. I am rather saying it is a mental disorder that is not normative. I am not speaking to causality, merely that paraphilia is paraphilia regardless of if it is included on the list . . . feltchers (feltchaphiliacs) aren't on the list either, but we can all agree that feltching is a paraphilia. This shouldn't be that hard.

Maren · May 6, 2010

Macx said:
Um, no, if that is what you read the first time through, I'd invite you to reread and take it a little slower. Your understanding is that I am saying it is a mental disorder because it is non-normative. I am rather saying it is a mental disorder that is not normative. I am not speaking to causality, merely that paraphilia is paraphilia regardless of if it is included on the list . . . feltchers (feltchaphiliacs) aren't on the list either, but we can all agree that feltching is a paraphilia. This shouldn't be that hard.

Rather than trying to insult me, you might instead have noticed that I was initially responding to this post of yours:

Macx said:
As a mental health professional I agree that it isn't currently listed in the DSM. The status of homosexuality in the DSM does not change what it is. It was sexual attraction (and all that) toward non-normative partners & it still is. Unless homosexuality has suddenly taken on a different meaning, or they have become a significant enough portion of society to be considered normative, it is still . . . abnormal.

And, if you notice, you say absolutely nothing about paraphilias in this post and do imply that it should be in the DSM solely for being non-normative. While you may have intended to refer to paraphilias, you did not link to a previous post showing that is what was intended, nor did you actually state it. As such, it was your fault at not expressing your thoughts rather than any of mine in comprehension.

Which brings us to this post, which I assume is what you are basing your comments on.

Macx said:
From the Wiki, since we're using wiki today -
feelings of having inhibited rights = distressing. suffering hate crimes = serious problems. Being denied "visitation rights" = distressing. Sex with same sex partner = sexual arousal to individuals that are not part of normative stimulation.

And, quite simply, you know this is sloppy and false analysis. First, the definition on Wikipedia is not completely accurate -- rather it is a simplified definition to that attempts to take a complex term and simplify it for laypeople. Not to mention, if you include the complete Wiki definition, " A paraphilia is a condition involving sex fetishes where a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about, and engaging in, sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme", homosexuality also does not qualify since even though it is atypical it is not extreme.

Further, go down a bit more and it includes the definition from the American Journal of Psychiatry,

"recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:

nonhuman objects, or

the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or

children, or

nonconsenting persons"

Again, homosexuality does not fit in the definition of a paraphilia. Which shows at a minimum that your argument is flawed or possibly that you were outright lying.

BigBadWlf · May 6, 2010

357magnum said:
The opinions of men on the subject of sin mean absolutely nothing.

You mean the opinions of people who dont agree with you

BigBadWlf · May 6, 2010

Macx said:
Being blond, blue eyed, or left handed are genetic . . . the evidence of sexual preference being genetic is, a wee short of weak.

Non-normative sexual preference that causes distress &/or social difficulties . . . you know, paraphilia, is significantly different than religious preference, given that religious preference is not a sexual preference . . . so it can't be a paraphilia. But good try.

Actually your mangling of the definition of paraphilia does make any one who is a non-Christian mentally ill

BigBadWlf · May 6, 2010

SithDoughnut said:
You have the studies to back up your argument, right? If it's that obvious then someone will have proven it.

One would think a mental health professional would have legitimately published studies to back up such a claim

BigBadWlf · May 6, 2010

Macx said:
Are you serious?

In July of 2005 when the study started, the population of the U.S. was 295,560,549 according to the U.S. Census Bureau found here Google - public data

What percent of 295,560,549 is 8,800,000? 2.9773933056268617% Roughly (rounding up) 3 out of every 100 Americans is Gay. Does that make it normal or abnormal? Is it the exception or the rule? Any other questions with obvious answers you'd like me to dig up for ya Mr. Doughnut?

In the United States Jews account for 2.2% of the population. According to you this makes being Jewish people mentally ill

In the United States 13% of the population are of African American Decent.By your standard this makes blacks mentally ill.

15.4% of the population of the United States in Hispanic, making Hispanics mentally ill according to your criteria

In the United States 16% of the population has blue eyes. According to you this makes blue eyed people mentally ill.

7% of the population of the United States is left handed meaning if you are left handed you are mentally ill, at least by your criterion.

Is homosexuality a sin?

BigBadWlf

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Legend

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith

Legend

Veteran

Well-Known Member

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency