Homosexuality Is A Mental Disorder

I appreciate my opponent’s prompt response. Pro stated that he did not wish to officially institute the rules I originally suggested in R1 as he would rather leave it up to the voters. He also made no remarks concerning the BoP. I assume that is also left up to the voters, and I hope voters understand why it should be recognized as belonging to Pro. WIKIPEDIAGenerally associated with distress or disability. The disagreement here is one of scope. In other words, how do we determine what associations really matter to the matter at hand and what associations are, in fact, too general. Pro may protest that this criterium mentions a general association, so it is wrong for me to argue that his associations are too general, but some associations are too general. I justify this by pointing out that basically everything in the world can be associated with something else if we take a broad enough view. Therefore, we must draw the line somewhere of what associations are too general. In R2 I made the connection between heterosexuality and illness based on the negative effects that can occur out of pregnancy using the same kind of logic that Pro used to join homosexuality and illness. This is an example of a connection that is too broad for application in this debate. It is therefore that I emphasize the importance of causation in determining the validity of an association. Pro responded to my argument that it is not homosexuality that we should be associating with distress in this debate, but instead the association should be made with bullying and similar things by saying: “If factors related to homosexuality are associated with distress, then it follows that by extension, homosexuality is associated with distress.” The problem is that Pro has not demonstrated that this extension is a reasonable extension to make in discussing whether homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder, and as he bears the BoP, this is something that he must do. I propose that direct causation is a more reasonable standard for determining association in this case. Such causations would be described in a medical sense as symptoms, so what I am saying is that the associations we ought to be looking at are the symptoms of homosexuality. The only symptom of homosexuality is an attraction to persons of the same sex. I will contrast this to something I’m sure Pro and I can both agree is a mental disorder: schizophrenia. The World Fellowship for Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders websites lists common symptoms of schizophrenia as delusions, hallucinations, illusions, thought disturbances, and emotional behavioral changes [1]. These symptoms are direct results of having schizophrenia and it is easy to see that these symptoms are full of distress and in some cases disability. Schizophrenia is not generally associated with distress because of the social stigmas that are attached to it and could cause something like bullying, but rather because the symptoms of the disease itself cause distress. This point also applies to Pro’s application of higher mental disorders in homosexuals to this criterium. Not considered part of normal development of a person’s culture. Pro’s arguments here are extremely illogical. First, he argues “Legal recognition of homosexual relationships is the utmost sign of social approval.” It should be pointed out that there are no laws in the United States that make homosexuality or homosexual relationships illegal. In fact, public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the majority of people favor some legal recognition for homosexual relationships [2]. In the United States, homosexuality is generally recognized as a part of our culture. He then dodges my question “If Pro’s argument is true, does this mean that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in states that have legalized same-sex marriage?” by saying “Would schizophrenia cease to be a mental disorder if it were not legally recognized as such?” This is circular reasoning. He is saying that we must determine whether something is a mental disorder based on whether it is accepted in a culture, but whether it is accepted in a culture has no bearing on whether it is really a mental disorder or not. This just goes to demonstrate why this is a silly criterium for evaluating whether something is a mental disorder. Popular acceptance has no bearing on scientific fact. Finally, he says that although I have shown that numerous cultures throughout history have recognized homosexuality, they have not accepted it because “Recognizing homosexuality is not the same as accepting it.” Yet this contradicts the first argument I quoted that said that recognizing homosexuality is “the utmost sign of social approval.” Obviously, both of these statements cannot be correct. BRITANNICA In this round along with rebutting my opponent’s claims, I will argue that according to the Britannica definition and the standards set down by my opponent, heterosexuality is also a mental disorder. If I succeed in doing this, Pro’s arguments here can basically be thrown out.Illness In R2 I did not claim that pregnancy made heterosexuality a mental disorder (though that is what I am going to do in this round), I merely claimed that Pro’s standards allowed heterosexuality to be considered an illness as he defined it. This was met with no arguments opposing it. Voters, make of that what you will. This criterium only applies to homosexuality based on Pro’s arguments if it applies to heterosexuality as well. I contend, homosexuality, that it does not apply to homosexuality, based on the comments made previously about symptoms and causation. Significant psychological or behavioral manifestations. Clearly this criterium applies to heterosexuality. 3. Associated with either painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning. Given the pain and distress that can be experience by pregnant women or women who have experienced detriment during child birth, this criterium applies to heterosexuality by Pro’s standards. This criterium is even more specific than the Wikipedia criterium as it actually specifies that the standard is being associated with symptoms. If it is not causing the symptom to occur, then it is fallacious to make the association between something and that symptom. This renders Pro’s dismissal of the importance of causation slain regarding this criterium. Concerning the misrepresentation of Pro’s source: While the study does claim that there is some increase in the mortality rate of homosexuals shortly after getting married, it clearly states that the rate overall is not drastically higher. What this means is that it is not high enough to be relevant in this debate, and Pro should have mentioned this. My opponent argued that I attacked a strawman regarding his discouraging procreation argument. Not true. My counter argument attacked the necessity of procreation by all to keep our species alive and thereby questioned whether homosexuality was indeed detrimental to our sexual functioning as Pro claimed. In no way do homosexual relationships damage the validity of heterosexual ones. Throughout his defense of this criterium’s application to homosexuality, Pro argues that he does not need to prove causation, only association. This is untrue, as such an association without causation does not fit the symptom part of the standard. I have both demonstrated that Pro’s arguments are both fallacious and if they apply to homosexuality, then they also apply to heterosexuality. FURTHER ARGUMENTS BY PRO Statistical infrequency: This proves nothing. Some people have brown eyes. Less people have hazel eyes. So what? Personal distress, Maladaptiveness, and Deviation from social norms: These have already been addressed. The resolution is negated. Sources: [1]- http://www.world-schizophrenia.org... [2]- http://www.politico.com...