Homosexuality Is A Mental Disorder

WikipediaMy opponent has conceded my arguments on criteria 1 & 2.Criterion 3: Generally associated with distress or disability.My opponent argues that the association of distress with homosexuality is too general to satisfy this criterion. Allow me to demonstrate why he is wrong:Homosexuals are at least three times more likely to have DSM mental health conditions. (1) A magnitude of three is not too general to be relevant.Homosexuals are seven times more likely to commit suicide. (2) A magnitude of seven is certainly not too general to be relevant.Homosexuals are at least forty-four times more likely to be infected by HIV. A magnitude of forty-four is most certainly not too general to be relevant. (3)My opponent claims that causation is important in determining the validity of an association, but that's false. No where in the definition of 'associated' is the word 'causation.' If Wikipedia's criterion called for causation, it would have used the word 'causes' instead of 'generally associated with.'Criterion 3 of the Wikipedia definition remains satisfied.Criterion 4: Not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.Con says my arguments on this point are extremely illogical, but they are not illogical at all.In response to my claim, "Legal recognition of homosexual relationships is the utmost sign of social approval", Con says that "no laws in the United States [...] make homosexuality or homosexual relationships illegal." This is a strawman. I never claimed that homosexual relationships are legal or illegal; what I did imply was that in the majority of the U.S.A., laws do not recognize homosexual relationships, in contrast to the legal recognition afforded to heterosexual marriage.Con says that "public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the majority of people favor some legal recognition for homosexual relationships", but according to Con's own source, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage! (5)Con says that "homosexuality is generally recognized as a part of our culture." This is irrelevant. I never said that homosexuality is not recognized as part of American culture; I said that homosexuality is not 'considered part of normal development' in American culture.Con poses the question, "does this mean that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in states that have legalized same-sex marriage?" As I pointed out in a previous round, the culture in question is the American culture. I chose the legality of gay marriage to defend my position that homosexuality is not considered part of normal development in American culture. If Con wants to argue about an individual state's culture, he needs to specify a state by name.Con says that "Popular acceptance has no bearing on scientific fact" to argue that acceptance of homosexuality has no bearing on its status as a disorder. In response, I mustache him a question: Why did he use a poll, a measurement of popular acceptance on homosexuality, to argue that homosexuality is not a mental disorder then?Con argues that I contradicted myself when I said "legal recognition [...] is the utmost sign of social approval" and when I later said "Recognizing homosexuality is not the same as accepting it." This is not a contradiction; mere recognition of homosexuality is not synonymous with legal recognition of homosexual relationships.BritannicaCriterion 1: Illness.My opponent claims that pregnancy is necessarily an illness, where 'illness' is defined as "an unhealthy condition of body or mind." This is false. For one thing, pregnancy is a required feature of human life; without it, the human race would quickly go extinct. Furthermore, the U.S. government makes it clear that pregnancy is not necessarily unhealthy by providing instructions on how to have a healthy pregnancy. (6) My opponent has failed to cite a single source that refers to pregnancy as 'unhealthy.' On top of all this, even if I were to concede that pregnancy is an illness, heterosexuality would not satisfy this criterion; obviously, only women can become pregnant, not men. Thus, Con's argument supports the notion that the state of being a heterosexual female is a mental disorder, and not heterosexuality itself.Criterion 3: Associated with either painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.Con says that this criterion applies to heterosexuality because of "the pain and distress that can be experience by pregnant women". This is false. I do concede that this criterion is satisfied by pregnancy, but in no way does this make heterosexuality a mental disorder. For one thing, this would only mean that being a heterosexual female is a disorder, since males can't get pregnant. Also, for heterosexuality to be called a mental disorder, all three criteria must be met, and criterion 1 is not satisfied by pregnancy, much less heterosexuality.Con argues that this criterion requires causation of a painful or distressing symptom to be satisfied. This is obviously false. If Con were right, then the text of this criterion would begin with 'causes' instead of 'associated with.' Also, this criterion doesn't even require association with a painful or distressing symptom; a single impairment in one important area of functioning suffices.I pointed out a strawman made by Con, but he defended his strawman by saying it "attacked the necessity of procreation by all to keep our species alive." This admission proves the fallacy of Con's argument. I never claimed all people need to procreate to keep our species alive. Con then makes another strawman: "In no way do homosexual relationships damage the validity of heterosexual ones." I never said homosexual relationships damage the validity of heterosexual ones.What I did say was that "homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse [...]" This is a self-evident fact and is not disputable. Homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse by it's nature of making non-procreative intercourse more appealing.Con has failed to demonstrate how heterosexuality satsifies these three criteria, and by extension, he has failed to refute my arguments on these criteria.Other criteriaCon says that the statistical infrequency of homosexuality proves nothing, and goes on to imply that I think rare eye colors are an indicator of a mental disorder. This is a strawman. I never claimed that statistical infrequency, in and of itself, proves homosexuality is a mental disorder. What I did claim was that homosexuality is a mental disorder because it satisfies the entire collection of criteria as a whole.SUMMARY:Con conceded points 1 & 2 of the Wikipedia criteria. His arguments against points 3 & 4 have just been refuted. Thus, homosexuality satisfies Wikipedia definition of a mental disorder.Con tried to refute my Britannica argument by trying to show how all three criteria applied to heterosexuality. These arguments have just been refuted. Con also conceded point 2. Thus, homosexuality satisfies the Britannica definition of a mental disorder.My extra arguments have also not been refuted.My position is sound. Thank you everyone. I await my opponent's response.(1) Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH, Simone French, PhD, Mary Story, PhD, Michael D. Resnick, PhD, and Robert Blum, MD, PhD. The Relationship between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study. 1998.(2) Whitehead, Neil. Homosexualities and Co-Morbidities: Therapeutic Research and Implications. Journal of Human Sexuality 2:124-175, 2010.(3) Tanzola, Melinda. HIV, Syphilis Risk Quantified in Gay, Bisexual Men. Clinical Psychiatry News (Volume 38, Issue 9).(4) Świtaj, Piotr and Wciórka, Jacek. Experience of stigma by people with schizophrenia compared with people with depression or malignancies. The Psychiatrist (2011) 35: 135-139.(5) http://images.politico.com...(6) http://www.womenshealth.gov...