Well, this post might do me in, but I must know what others may be thinking on this. First, let me be up front and apologize to anyone this may offend. I mean no offense. I'm not really trying to make a point here, but am really asking a question.
As a society we label deviant sexual behaviors such as pedafilia, necrofilia, or bestiality as being a mental sickness. Now, I'm not an expert or psychiatrist, but I think most people would agree with me that people who have these desires would be considered sick, and in need of some kind of medical help, or counseling at least. My question is how does homosexuality escape being lumped into the above category?
I realize that there was a time when homosexuality was considered a sickness, but is no longer recognized as such by the medical community. I beleive the Freud was one of the first to take such a stance. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Is it merely because of the victimlessness of the act? The whole arguement of "two consenting adults"? Of course we condemn a pedafile. He is sick! A predator! A deviant from nature! But isn't homosexuality deviant as well? By deviant I mean deviating from the norm. I'm not trying to make a case of weather it's a choice, or inborn. I am just saying it is a behavior that certainly strays from nature's intentions. What benefit did nature intend to gain from such behavior? You don't have to be from Alabama or read the Bible to realize that it's not "normal".
So my puzzlement here I guess is what is it about homosexuality that distinguishes it from other sexual behaviors considered deviant? How does it become accepted as "normal" by much of society and the medical community, when a pedifile or necrofiliac, for example, is considered to be mentally sick?
Does it all just depend on who you talk to? How widespread it becomes? If you talk to a member of the NAMBLA, they wouldn't consider pedafilia as a sickness. Would they?
Well that's it...let the hell fire begin. "Shuddering"
13 years ago
4 comments:
This cuts to the core of many arguments on the matter. Following what nature intends. As to whether or not nature intends this, there is of course more contention, but the philosophical basis for the Catholic stance on the matter springs from this idea.
http://maroonblog.blogspot.com
I guess that is the trouble. Where does one draw the line as to what is acceptable
Wow, I admire your guts once again for posting something so controversial!
You raise some good points, and I'd have to say that I suppose it depends on what society views as "normal." In certain areas of San Francisco, being heterosexual is abnormal, so maybe it's majority rules.
You have serious nerve, my friend...Gulp, this is such a difficult topic! Obviously, two consenting adults that could physiologically reproduce, would be considered the norm. Anything else would then be considered deviant behavior...(She wipes the sweat from her forehead.)
Post a Comment