Religious Freedom

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

However, if you're a Christian, it doesn't really take a lot of ingenuity to find biblical condemnation of homosexuality (this is one topic where I find the "progressive" interpretations more tortured than the "regressive" one).

I'm curious to know why you say this. The greek words that modern man has interpreted into homosexuality actually reffered to keeping young boys as prostitutes. The actual word for homosexuality that the greeks used doesn't appear in the bible.

Not that Christians couldn't argue about the whole man and woman in marriage thing.

[Not Afraid]

Focus on the difference between how one IS gay and how one BECOMES an alcoholic. That is the primary difference to me.

The planet analogy just isn't working for me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Focus on the difference between how one IS gay and how one BECOMES an alcoholic. That is the primary difference to me.

Just because something doesn't have the same structure as alcoholism doesn't mean it's not a disease. Albinism is classified as a disease and it exhibits itself nothing like alcoholism, obviously. You are born an albino.

Additionally, alcoholism itself can be exhibited in many different ways, as you're well aware. Some people can become addicted within having the first few drinks of their lives. Some people who might become addicted were they to drink in excess likely avoid it if they never have more than an occasional casual drink their whole life. And some people will never become alcoholics no matter how much they drink.

And while there's no hard evidence as of yet, I'd be shocked if the same weren't true of homosexuality. Some people are going to be gay no matter their upbringing. Some people are going to be straight no matter their environment. Some people will go one way or the other depending on what they're exposed to as they grow up.

But the fact remains, if the medical community were convinced that homosexuality were detrimental, it would be classified as a disease.

And I'm standing by the planet analogy. Both are purely subjective calls to drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Neither term has any scientific definition that can be applied to accurately and automatically categorize anything.

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't know the timeline, but homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. Now it's not. My DSM IV does not list homosexuality as a disorder. It does, however, list transvestic fetishism and gender identity disorder. However, as with most diseases, these should only be diagnosed as disorders if they cause distress or impair function.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I don't know the timeline, but homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. Now it's not. My DSM IV does not list homosexuality as a disorder. It does, however, list transvestic fetishism and gender identity disorder. However, as with most diseases, these should only be diagnosed as disorders if they cause distress or impair function.

All true, and it's that last bit that's of most import. Subjective definition, not scientific fact.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And while there's no hard evidence as of yet, I'd be shocked if the same weren't true of homosexuality. Some people are going to be gay no matter their upbringing. Some people are going to be straight no matter their environment. Some people will go one way or the other depending on what they're exposed to as they grow up.

But the fact remains, if the medical community were convinced that homosexuality were detrimental, it would be classified as a disease.

And I'm standing by the planet analogy. Both are purely subjective calls to drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Neither term has any scientific definition that can be applied to accurately and automatically categorize anything.

I'm going to mince words about alcoholism. Alcoholism isn't alcoholism until alcohol is involved. Predisposition to compulsive behavior is the genetic trait in question.

And here's where our arguments aren't running on the same track. I believe that homosexuality isn't a predisposition, but a biological fact-- therefore not at all comparable to any behavior that IS a predisposition.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

And here's where our arguments aren't running on the same track. I believe that homosexuality isn't a predisposition, but a biological fact-- therefore not at all comparable to any behavior that IS a predisposition.

And I'm not going to mince words...I believe that, just like alcoholism, it runs the gamut between "Gay no matter what" and "Not gay until ya' get some man-love."

But again, EVEN if I were to accept your premise, that doesn't disqualify it from being a disease IF it's deemed detrimental.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And I'm not going to mince words...I believe that, just like alcoholism, it runs the gamut between "Gay no matter what" and "Not gay until ya' get some man-love."

But again, EVEN if I were to accept your premise, that doesn't disqualify it from being a disease IF it's deemed detrimental.

I've already stated that I *see* your point of view that anything can be called a disease if society deems it detrimental.

The point that I was debating here was sexuality as a predisposition. And we disagree.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

The planet analogy is not working for me, either.

But I see where you're going with the "something is only a disease because society has decided that its effects are bad" argument. Still, you are born biologically gay. You are not born biologically alcoholic. Compulsive, perhaps, but not alcoholic.

[Not Afraid]

Exactly what I was trying to say, H. You may be alcoholic before you have your first drink, or it may develop over time as you continue drinking and your body begins to chemically process alcohol differently. But, you need alcohol to become an alcoholic. You can BE gay and never actually have acted on it. You don't need to ever have had gay sex to be gay. Big difference.


I don't think albinoism is classified as a disease.