I have discussed with quite a lot of people about my attitude towards homosexuals, and of course I have received some irrational comments, after posting my thoughts in some other blogs. In this article, I would like to summarize what I think about homosexuals and gay activists. I hopes to stress that these two things are different, with the latter being much more aggressive and demanding.
Proper Places
There are two main positions on homosexuality in our society:
1. Homosexuality is a sin that should be condemned.
2. Homosexuals deserve exactly equal rights as heterosexuals.
I support neither position. Let me tell you why.
Even in countries in which gay rights are most rampant (e.g. Netherland), homosexual couples are still much more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, for both gay men and lesbians. Moreoever, there is strong evidence that homosexuals, statistically speaking, are more likely to adopt pathological behaviors such as substance abuse and suicidal behaviors. Some of you may tell me that this is due to homophobia.
Ah really?
One study have found that this trend persists in Netherland and other countries that are remarkably tolerant of homosexuals. Even after controlling for experience of social stigma and rejection, homosexuals are still more likely than heterosexuals to exhibit pathological behaviors. This suggests that homophobia can't explain everything, instead some scholars suggested that there may be something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality itself.
Let's see how the APA (American Psychological Association) define mental disorder:
-- A mental disorder is a condition which is un-normative, distressful and causing impairment.
Obviously as we have discussed, homosexuality fits into this definition perfectly.
(Saghir & Robins, 1978; Bell & Weinberg, 1981; Ross ,1988; Herrell et al., 1999; Sandfort et al. 2001)
Therefore, my conclusion is that homosexuality is probably indeed a mental illness, and some APA staff even admitted that the removal of same-sex attraction from their list of mental disorder was based more on politics rather than science. Hence, homosexuals deserve treatment of mental patients, not that of normal people nor that of criminals. That's why I don't agree with both of the above positions.
Someone told me that homosexuality caused some other problems, which would in turn lead to pathology, and thus it is these problems rather than homosexuality itself, that need to be dealth with. However, we know that depression doesn't cause pathology directly either, but instead cause irrational thoughts, but we still prefer to treat depression rather than merely removing those thoughts, this is because if we knows that the former is causing the latter, changing the latter only won't bring any long-term benefits. If we deal with the former intead, we could completely uproot the problems (in theory).
The Movement
While homosexuals themselves are not condemnable, I strongly believe that there are something wrong about the gay "rights" movement.
Reason?
See this article:
http://www.blogherald.com/2003/09/09/profs-anti-gay-blog-returns-to-university-website/
That's the point: the gay "rights" movement have already attained such a powerful position that criticism of homosexuals become politically incorrect, even if those comments are perfectly rational. Read some history and you will know that letting a group (be it religious or not) hold the power to shut off rational criticism can lead to very disastrous results. In my opinion, some gay activists are merely exploiting homosexuals to attain the power, and things that can potentially follow are just too morbid to imagine.
Of course, promoting gay marriage and all those politically correct "gay-is-not-an-illness" things is not going to help homosexuals either. If they are indeed mental patients, letting them roam around with their problematic behaviors won't bring them any good.
Conclusion
In sum, I believe that there are some good reasons to consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, rather than criminal behaviors nor a normal orientation. Although I won't blame homosexuals of anything, there are some signs of gay activism being the cult for the next generation. I sincerely hope that this is not going to happen.
Reference
Bell, A.P.; Weinberg, M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among Men And Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.
Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.
Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.
Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland. 335 pages.
2011年5月18日 星期三
2011年4月7日 星期四
Insanity and Gay Laws, Part 1
Discrimination has been a behavior widely condemned by various groups, especially gay activists. One of the most insane things they have done is to make "stirring up hatred against homosexuals" illegal. Okay, I admit there are problems IF someone deliberately create emotional states in the public to attack certain groups of people, be it men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals and so on. However, gay activists seem to define the term quite differently:
Firemen demoted and fined for shining torch on gay foursome in the bushes
This is by no mean stirring up hatred. Instead, I guess the firemen would have done the same if the perpetuators were heterosexual. This implies that gay activists don't seem to use my definition. Their version seem to be "anything that displeases homosexuals should be illegal, EVEN IF those things make perfect senses". Of course they won't admit this publicly, but judging from WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO, it seems to be.
This would be VERY problematic, because this would make rational criticism of homosexuals illegitimate. And read some history and you will know that letting a group (no matter it is a religion or anything else) hold such power can be very disastrous.
Conclusion
All in all, I have to stress that I am NOT anti-gay, but it remains a fact that gay activists are doing a lot of absurd things, which, in my opinion, are nothing but unfair for heterosexuals. I admit, homosexuals are also people, but I don't think we should give them benefit at the expense of others.
Firemen demoted and fined for shining torch on gay foursome in the bushes
This is by no mean stirring up hatred. Instead, I guess the firemen would have done the same if the perpetuators were heterosexual. This implies that gay activists don't seem to use my definition. Their version seem to be "anything that displeases homosexuals should be illegal, EVEN IF those things make perfect senses". Of course they won't admit this publicly, but judging from WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO, it seems to be.
This would be VERY problematic, because this would make rational criticism of homosexuals illegitimate. And read some history and you will know that letting a group (no matter it is a religion or anything else) hold such power can be very disastrous.
Conclusion
All in all, I have to stress that I am NOT anti-gay, but it remains a fact that gay activists are doing a lot of absurd things, which, in my opinion, are nothing but unfair for heterosexuals. I admit, homosexuals are also people, but I don't think we should give them benefit at the expense of others.
2011年4月6日 星期三
Homosexaulity: Choices or What?
One of the most common controversy in issues about homosexuality is regarding whether the gays "choose" to be gay. Anti-gay suggested that sexual orientation is a choice and is therefore changeable. Let's investigate their arguments a bit, shall we?
Argument 1
Sexual Orientation is only 20% genetic in origin, so it is a choice.
-Okay, I can't think of any arguments that are more absurd than this one, not even feminist arguments. The point is, is the remaining 80% choices? No. Studies suggest that those are environmental factors, but we all know that a child has very little choices in his family environment, parents, siblings, education, and so on. Therefore, I seriously doubt if those 80% can be considered to be "choices".
Argument 2
Sexual Orientation is not a choice, so we have to act on it.
-This is a pro-gay argument that is commonly heard of. It is nothing but absurdity. As mentioned in one of my previous articles, many criminals (yes, even murder and VERY violent crimes) have very little choices in committing crime, as studies have pointed out that many childhood and genetic factors are involved in inducing criminal behaviors. Does this make their behaviors justifiable? I think not.
Conclusion
I have investigate the most common arguments, both pro- and anti- gay regarding choice theory. As you can see, the most basic levels of logics can completely reveal the absurdity of these arguments. I guess most people just can't be rational when it comes to gender-related issues.
Argument 1
Sexual Orientation is only 20% genetic in origin, so it is a choice.
-Okay, I can't think of any arguments that are more absurd than this one, not even feminist arguments. The point is, is the remaining 80% choices? No. Studies suggest that those are environmental factors, but we all know that a child has very little choices in his family environment, parents, siblings, education, and so on. Therefore, I seriously doubt if those 80% can be considered to be "choices".
Argument 2
Sexual Orientation is not a choice, so we have to act on it.
-This is a pro-gay argument that is commonly heard of. It is nothing but absurdity. As mentioned in one of my previous articles, many criminals (yes, even murder and VERY violent crimes) have very little choices in committing crime, as studies have pointed out that many childhood and genetic factors are involved in inducing criminal behaviors. Does this make their behaviors justifiable? I think not.
Conclusion
I have investigate the most common arguments, both pro- and anti- gay regarding choice theory. As you can see, the most basic levels of logics can completely reveal the absurdity of these arguments. I guess most people just can't be rational when it comes to gender-related issues.
2011年3月28日 星期一
More pro-gay arguments
I have discussed some absurd arguments promoted by gay activists previously, and I am going to evaluate more of their arguments. After some readings, I have to say that gay activists (along with feminists) seriously need to take some classes on logics and debates.
Arguement 1
There is nothing wrong with a loving and consensual relationship.
-I can think of some problems with this argument: It allows incest. If it stands, than it follows that incest would be morally acceptable, and we know that incest is harmful to the health of the offsprings due to higher likelihood of transmitting genetic disease. In this case, incest is a very selfish behaviors since the participants fulfil their wish at the expense of other people. Therefore, it follows that this argument is not a good reason to justify behaviors.
Argument 2:
Not accepting homosexual relationships is not fair since heterosexual relationships are widely accepted.
-Yes, fairness is important to our society. But the prerequisite of fairness is that the target behavior should be morally acceptable. For example, if we accept women doing certain crimes while condemning men for doing the same, we would call this unfair because both behaviors are exactly the same.
-The point is, is heterosexual and homosexual relationships truly "the same". I think not, for the most parts. Even in societies in which gay rights are most rampant, homosexual couples are still more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, and homosexuals are still more likely to abuse substances and alcohol than heterosexuals. Therefore, I think I have some good reasons to suggest that these two are NOT the same.
-By the way, don't tell me that these are due to homophobia. Do some goggling and you will find a good number of studies which suggest that homophobia does contribute, but it cannot explain everything.
Conclusion
I don't think homosexuals are giving good reasons for us to accept them (and more importantly, spending so much money to help them). I am not anti-gay, but despite this, the fact is gay activists probably have a hard time justifying their behaviors.
Arguement 1
There is nothing wrong with a loving and consensual relationship.
-I can think of some problems with this argument: It allows incest. If it stands, than it follows that incest would be morally acceptable, and we know that incest is harmful to the health of the offsprings due to higher likelihood of transmitting genetic disease. In this case, incest is a very selfish behaviors since the participants fulfil their wish at the expense of other people. Therefore, it follows that this argument is not a good reason to justify behaviors.
Argument 2:
Not accepting homosexual relationships is not fair since heterosexual relationships are widely accepted.
-Yes, fairness is important to our society. But the prerequisite of fairness is that the target behavior should be morally acceptable. For example, if we accept women doing certain crimes while condemning men for doing the same, we would call this unfair because both behaviors are exactly the same.
-The point is, is heterosexual and homosexual relationships truly "the same". I think not, for the most parts. Even in societies in which gay rights are most rampant, homosexual couples are still more likely to break up than heterosexual ones, and homosexuals are still more likely to abuse substances and alcohol than heterosexuals. Therefore, I think I have some good reasons to suggest that these two are NOT the same.
-By the way, don't tell me that these are due to homophobia. Do some goggling and you will find a good number of studies which suggest that homophobia does contribute, but it cannot explain everything.
Conclusion
I don't think homosexuals are giving good reasons for us to accept them (and more importantly, spending so much money to help them). I am not anti-gay, but despite this, the fact is gay activists probably have a hard time justifying their behaviors.
2011年3月21日 星期一
Substance Abuse and Homosexuality
I have always been wondering about the differential treatment substance abusers and homosexuals receive: the former would be advised to get rid of their habits and the latter will be celebrated (mostly by the gay community and SOME psychotherapists). You may ask why this is considered to be a differential treatment. Well, I have got some points here:
1. Both can harm one's health.
-Well, there is no doubt about substance abuse threatening our health. In fact, due to receptive anal sex, gay and bisexual men are about 15 times more likely to get anal cancer. Anal sex is also a very effective way to spread AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases. Also, Homosexuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to abuse alchohols or has mental illnesses.
2. Both are to a certain extent, genetic.
-Just do a bit googling and you will find evidence for what I have said.
3. Both are changeable.
-same as the above
How exactly do substance abuse and homosexuality differs from each other such that they deserve such differential treatment?
Counter Argument [Edited]
Recently, I have received a counter-argument against this article, whose content was posted on another blog. This counter-argument goes as follow:
-- It is homosexual people's unhealthy habits that has caused their health problems, therefore what should be treated is these behaviors, rather than homosexuality itself.
Ah really?
There have been various research showing that homosexuality is inherently connected to unhealthy behaviors. For example, there are studies indicating that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems and be suicidal even in countries in which homophobia is remarkably low. Some of them even suggested that homosexuals are more likely to have such problems even when homophobia experienced is controlled for. All these implies that social factors cannot explain all mental health problems among homosexuals. Therefore, there are reasons to suggest that unhealthiness is intrinsically associated with homosexuality, although it may not be a direct causes of these problems.
I believe this is a good reasons to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder. As we can see, MANY mental disorders including depression, conduct disorder, anti-social personality disorder don't directly lead to health problems but instead cause the sufferers to act in unhealthy manners. If this counter-argument stands, then we shouldn't treat these problems as mental disorder either, and this will lead to VERY disastrous result.
See: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
1. Both can harm one's health.
-Well, there is no doubt about substance abuse threatening our health. In fact, due to receptive anal sex, gay and bisexual men are about 15 times more likely to get anal cancer. Anal sex is also a very effective way to spread AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases. Also, Homosexuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to abuse alchohols or has mental illnesses.
2. Both are to a certain extent, genetic.
-Just do a bit googling and you will find evidence for what I have said.
3. Both are changeable.
-same as the above
How exactly do substance abuse and homosexuality differs from each other such that they deserve such differential treatment?
Counter Argument [Edited]
Recently, I have received a counter-argument against this article, whose content was posted on another blog. This counter-argument goes as follow:
-- It is homosexual people's unhealthy habits that has caused their health problems, therefore what should be treated is these behaviors, rather than homosexuality itself.
Ah really?
There have been various research showing that homosexuality is inherently connected to unhealthy behaviors. For example, there are studies indicating that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems and be suicidal even in countries in which homophobia is remarkably low. Some of them even suggested that homosexuals are more likely to have such problems even when homophobia experienced is controlled for. All these implies that social factors cannot explain all mental health problems among homosexuals. Therefore, there are reasons to suggest that unhealthiness is intrinsically associated with homosexuality, although it may not be a direct causes of these problems.
I believe this is a good reasons to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder. As we can see, MANY mental disorders including depression, conduct disorder, anti-social personality disorder don't directly lead to health problems but instead cause the sufferers to act in unhealthy manners. If this counter-argument stands, then we shouldn't treat these problems as mental disorder either, and this will lead to VERY disastrous result.
See: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
2011年3月18日 星期五
Why should we accept Homosexuality?
Well, I guess many of you have heard of gay right activists giving arguments to justify homosexuality. I have also seen many of such attempts. After some reading, I have found that so far, almost all of the ones I have seen are variations of the following three arguments.
Argument 1
Homosexuality is inborn, so it is justifiable.
-Hm, I can think of a hxll lot of problems with this argument.
a) I have done some reading. Although quite a lot of twin studies and so on have shown that genes can influence sexual orientation, homosexuality is NOT completely genetic in origin. This means that the first premise is not correct.
b) This argument has a hidden premise: things that are inborn are justifiable. Anyone who has read some psychology will know that many other behaviors such as serial murder and violence are also to a certain extent, genetic in origin. Does this means that these behaviors are also justifiable? I guess not.
Argument 2
Homosexuality can't be changed, so it must be accepted.
-This argument is pretty similar to the last one. And the problems with it are also quite similar to those with the first argument.
a) NARTH (link: http://narth.com/) has reported that they has acheived some success about changing sexual orientation.I won't go into details here, but if you are interested, you could go to their website.
b) Being unchangeable doesn't make a behavior justifiable. Say, humans' tendency to reject those who are different is also large unchangeable. Following this logic, we shouldn't get rid of discrimination.
Argument 3
Homosexuality exists in animals, so it is natural.
-Since when did animals became standards of morality? Things that are 'natural' aren't neccessarily good. If this is true, why not we go live in caves or eat raw meats?
Conclusion
It is very hard to find gay activists that can give appropiate justifications for their behaviors. To a certain extent, I would say that gay activists, like feminists, are promoting illogical thinking. Well, this doesn't neccessarily means that we need to get rid of them, but I think they need to change their argumentative style a bit, don't they?
Argument 1
Homosexuality is inborn, so it is justifiable.
-Hm, I can think of a hxll lot of problems with this argument.
a) I have done some reading. Although quite a lot of twin studies and so on have shown that genes can influence sexual orientation, homosexuality is NOT completely genetic in origin. This means that the first premise is not correct.
b) This argument has a hidden premise: things that are inborn are justifiable. Anyone who has read some psychology will know that many other behaviors such as serial murder and violence are also to a certain extent, genetic in origin. Does this means that these behaviors are also justifiable? I guess not.
Argument 2
Homosexuality can't be changed, so it must be accepted.
-This argument is pretty similar to the last one. And the problems with it are also quite similar to those with the first argument.
a) NARTH (link: http://narth.com/) has reported that they has acheived some success about changing sexual orientation.I won't go into details here, but if you are interested, you could go to their website.
b) Being unchangeable doesn't make a behavior justifiable. Say, humans' tendency to reject those who are different is also large unchangeable. Following this logic, we shouldn't get rid of discrimination.
Argument 3
Homosexuality exists in animals, so it is natural.
-Since when did animals became standards of morality? Things that are 'natural' aren't neccessarily good. If this is true, why not we go live in caves or eat raw meats?
Conclusion
It is very hard to find gay activists that can give appropiate justifications for their behaviors. To a certain extent, I would say that gay activists, like feminists, are promoting illogical thinking. Well, this doesn't neccessarily means that we need to get rid of them, but I think they need to change their argumentative style a bit, don't they?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)